[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 2285
Network Working Group R. Mandeville
INTERNET-DRAFT European Network Laboratories
Expiration Date: January 1998 August 1997
Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices
<draft-ietf-bmwg-lanswitch-06.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
"work in progress."
To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
(Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East
Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Existing definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Term definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1 Device under test (DUT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2 System under test (SUT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Traffic orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1 Unidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2 Bidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Traffic distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1 One-to-one mapped traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2 Partially meshed traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3 Fully meshed traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 Bursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.1 Burst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.2 Burst size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.3 Inter-burst gap (IBG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mandeville [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
3.5 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.1 Intended load (Iload) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.2 Offered load (Oload) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.3 Maximum offered load (MOL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.4 Overloading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6 Forwarding rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6.1 Forwarding rate (FR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6.2 Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL). . . . 16
3.6.3 Maximum forwarding rate (MFR). . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7 Congestion control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.7.1 Backpressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.7.2 Forward pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7.3 Head of line blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Address handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8.1 Address caching capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.8.2 Address learning rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.8.3 Flood count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.9 Errored frame filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.9.1 Errored frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.10 Broadcasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.10.1 Broadcast forwarding rate at maximum load . . . . . . 23
3.10.2 Broadcast latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
This Request for Comments (RFC) is intended to provide terminology
for the benchmarking of local area network (LAN) switching devices.
It extends the terminology already defined for benchmarking network
interconnect devices in RFCs 1242 and 1944 to switching devices.
Mandeville [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Although it might be found useful to apply some of the terms defined
here to a broader range of network interconnect devices, this RFC
primarily deals with devices which switch frames at the Medium
Access Control (MAC) layer. It defines terms in relation to the
traffic put to use when benchmarking switching devices, forwarding
performance, latency, address handling and filtering.
2. Existing definitions
RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices"
should be consulted before attempting to make use of this document.
RFC 1944 "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"
contains discussions of a number of terms relevant to the
benchmarking of switching devices and should also be consulted.
For the sake of clarity and continuity this RFC adopts the template
for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242. Definitions are
indexed and grouped together in sections for ease of reference.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
3. Term definitions
3.1 Devices
This group of definitions applies to all types of networking
devices.
3.1.1 Device under test (DUT)
Definition:
The network forwarding device to which stimulus is offered and
response measured.
Discussion:
A single stand-alone or modular unit which receives frames on
or more of its interfaces and then forwards them to one or more
interfaces according to the addressing information contained in
the frame.
Measurement units:
n/a
Mandeville [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Issues:
See Also:
system under test (SUT) (3.1.2)
3.1.2 System Under Test (SUT)
Definition:
The collective set of network devices to which stimulus is
offered as a single entity and response measured.
Discussion:
A system under test may be comprised of a variety of networking
devices. Some devices may be active in the forwarding decision-
making process, such as routers or switches; other devices may
be passive such as a CSU/DSU. Regardless of constituent
components, the system is treated as a singular entity to which
stimulus is offered and response measured.
Measurement units:
n/a
Issues:
See Also:
device under test (DUT) (3.1.1)
3.2 Traffic orientation
This group of definitions applies to the traffic presented to the
interfaces of a DUT/SUT and indicates whether the interfaces are
receiving only, transmitting only, or both receiving and
transmitting.
3.2.1 Unidirectional traffic
Definition:
When all frames presented to the input interfaces of a DUT/SUT
are addressed to output interfaces which do not themselves
receive any frames.
Mandeville [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Discussion:
This definition conforms to the discussion in section 16 of RFC
1944 on multi-port testing which describes how unidirectional
traffic can be offered to a DUT/SUT to measure throughput.
Unidirectional traffic is also appropriate for:
-the measurement of the minimum inter-frame gap
-the creation of many-to-one or one-to-many interface overload
-the detection of head of line blocking
-the measurement of forwarding rates and throughput when
congestion control mechanisms are active.
When a tester offers unidirectional traffic to a DUT/SUT
reception and transmission are handled by different interfaces
or sets of interfaces of the DUT/SUT. All frames received from
the tester by the DUT/SUT are transmitted back to the tester
from interfaces which do not themselves receive any frames.
It is useful to distinguish traffic orientation and traffic
distribution when considering traffic patterns used in device
testing. Unidirectional traffic, for example, is traffic
orientated in a single direction between mutually exclusive
sets of source and destination interfaces of a DUT/SUT. Such
traffic, however, can be distributed between interfaces in
different ways. When traffic is sent to two or more
interfaces from an external source and then forwarded by the
DUT/SUT to a single output interface the traffic orientation is
unidirectional and the traffic distribution between interfaces
is many-to-one. Traffic can also be sent to a single input
interface and forwarded by the DUT/SUT to two or more output
interfaces to achieve a one-to-many distribution of traffic.
Such traffic distributions can also be combined to test for
head of line blocking or to measure forwarding rates and
throughput when congestion control is active.
When a DUT/SUT is equipped with interfaces running at different
media rates the number of input interfaces required to load or
overload an output interface or interfaces will vary.
It should be noted that measurement of the minimum inter-frame
gap serves to detect violations of the IEEE 802.3 standard.
Issues:
half duplex / full duplex
Mandeville [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Measurement units:
n/a
See Also:
bidirectional traffic (3.2.2)
one-to-one mapped traffic (3.3.1)
partially meshed traffic (3.3.2)
fully meshed traffic (3.3.3)
congestion control (3.7)
head of line blocking (3.7.3)
3.2.2 Bidirectional traffic
Definition:
Frames presented to a DUT/SUT such that each of the interfaces
of the DUT/SUT both receive and transmit.
Discussion:
This definition conforms to the discussions in sections 14 and
16 of RFC 1944 on bidirectional traffic and multi-port testing.
When a tester offers bidirectional traffic to a DUT/SUT all the
interfaces which receive frames from the tester also transmit
frames back to the tester.
Bidirectional traffic MUST be offered when measuring throughput
on full duplex interfaces of a switching device.
Issues:
truncated binary exponential back-off algorithm
Measurement units:
n/a
See Also:
unidirectional traffic (3.2.1)
one-to-one mapped traffic (3.3.1)
partially meshed traffic (3.3.2)
fully meshed traffic (3.3.3)
Mandeville [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
3.3 Traffic distribution
This group of definitions applies to the distribution of frames
forwarded by any DUT/SUT.
3.3.1 One-to-one mapped traffic
Definition:
Frames offered to a single input interface and addressed to a
single output interface of a DUT/SUT where input and output
interfaces are grouped in mutually exclusive pairs.
Discussion:
In the simplest instance of one-to-one mapped traffic
distribution frames are forwarded between one source interface
and one destination interface of a DUT/SUT. One-to-one mapped
traffic distribution extends to multiple distinct pairs of
source and destination interfaces.
Measurement units:
n/a
Issues:
half duplex / full duplex
See Also:
unidrectional traffic (3.2.1)
bidirectional traffic (3.2.2)
partially meshed traffic (3.3.2.)
fully meshed traffic (3.3.3)
burst (3.4.1)
3.3.2 Partially meshed traffic
Definition:
Frames offered to one or more input interfaces of a DUT/SUT and
addressed to one or more output interfaces where input and
output interfaces are mutually exclusive and mapped one-to-
many, many-to-one or many-to-many.
Mandeville [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Discussion:
This definition follows from the discussions in sections 14 and
16 of RFC 1944 on bidirectional traffic and multi-port testing.
Partially meshed traffic allows for one-to-many, many-to-one or
many-to-many mappings of input to output interfaces and readily
extends to configurations with multiple switching devices
linked together over backbone connections.
When partially meshed traffic is distributed in a one-to-many
or many-to-one mapping of receiving to transmitting interfaces
of a DUT/SUT traffic orientation will be unidirectional. When
traffic is partially meshed and distributed in a many-to-many
mapping of receiving to transmitting ports which are mutually
exclusive traffic orientation will be bidirectional.
Measurement units:
n/a
Issues:
half duplex / full duplex
See Also:
unidirectional traffic (3.2.1)
bidirectional traffic (3.2.2)
one-to-one mapped traffic (3.3.1)
fully meshed traffic (3.3.3)
burst (3.4.1)
3.3.3 Fully meshed traffic
Definition:
Frames switched simultaneously between all of a designated
number of interfaces of a DUT/SUT such that each of the
interfaces under test will both forward frames to and receive
frames from all of the other interfaces under test.
Discussion:
As with bidirectional multi-port traffic, meshed traffic
exercises both the transmission and reception sides of the
interfaces of a switching device. Since interfaces are not
divided into two groups every interface forwards frames to and
receives frames from every other interface. The total number
of individual input/output interface pairs when traffic is
meshed over n switched interfaces equals n x (n - 1). This
compares with n x (n / 2) such interface pairs in a
bidirectional multi-port test.
Mandeville [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
It should be noted that bidirectional multi-port traffic can
load backbone connections linking together two switching
devices more than fully meshed traffic. In a bidirectional
multiport test each one of two devices or systems connected
over a backbone connection can be configured to forward the
totality of the frames they receive to the devices or systems
placed on the opposite side of the backbone connection. All
frames generated during such a test will traverse the backbone
connection. Fully meshed traffic requires at least some of the
frames received on the interfaces of each one of the devices or
systems under test to be forwarded locally, that is to the
interfaces of the receiving devices themselves. Such frames
will not traverse the backbone connection.
Bidirectional meshed traffic on half duplex interfaces is
inherently bursty since interfaces must interrupt transmission
whenever they receive frames. This kind of bursty meshed
traffic is characteristic of real network traffic and can be
advantageously used to diagnose a DUT/SUT by exercising many of
its component parts simultaneously. Additional inspection may
be warranted to correlate the frame forwarding capacity of a
DUT/SUT when offered meshed traffic and the behavior of
individual elements such as input or output buffers,
buffer allocation mechanisms, aggregate switching capacity,
processing speed or medium access control.
The analysis of forwarding rate measurements presents a
challenge when offering bidirectional or fully meshed traffic
since the rate at which the tester can be observed to transmit
frames to the DUT/SUT may be smaller than the rate at which it
intends to transmit due to collisions on half duplex media or
the action of congestion control mechanisms. This makes it
important to take account of both the intended and offered
loads defined in sections 3.5.1.and 3.5.2 below when reporting
the results of such forwarding rate measurements.
When offering bursty meshed traffic to a DUT/SUT a number of
variables have to be considered. These include frame size, the
number of frames within bursts, the interval between bursts as
well as the distribution of load between incoming and outgoing
traffic. Terms related to bursts are defined in section 3.3
below.
Measurement units:
n/a
Mandeville [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Issues:
half duplex / full duplex
See Also:
unidirectional traffic (3.2.1)
bidirectional traffic (3.2.2)
one-to-one mapped traffic (3.3.1)
partially meshed traffic (3.3.2)
burst (3.4.1)
intended load (3.5.1)
offered load (3.5.2)
3.4 Bursts
This group of definitions applies to the intervals between frames or
groups of frames offered to the DUT/SUT.
3.4.1 Burst
Definition:
A sequence of frames transmitted with the minimum inter-frame
gap allowed by the medium.
Discussion:
This definition follows from discussions in section 3.16 of RFC
1242 and section 21 of RFC 1944 which describes cases where it
is useful to consider isolated frames as single frame bursts.
Measurement units:
n/a
Issues:
See Also:
burst size (3.4.2)
inter-burst gap (IBG) (3.4.3)
Mandeville [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
3.4.2 Burst size
Definition:
The number of frames in a burst.
Discussion:
Burst size can range from one to infinity. In unidirectional
traffic as well as in bidirectional or meshed traffic on full
duplex interfaces there is no theoretical limit to burst
length. When traffic is bidirectional or meshed bursts on half
duplex media are finite since interfaces interrupt transmission
intermittently to receive frames.
On real networks burst size will normally increase with window
size. This makes it desirable to test devices with small as
well as large burst sizes.
Measurement units:
number of N-octet frames
Issues:
See Also:
burst (3.4.1)
inter-burst gap (IBG) (3.4.3)
3.4.3 Inter-burst gap (IBG)
Definition:
The interval between two bursts.
Discussion:
This definition conforms to the discussion in section 20 of RFC
1944 on bursty traffic.
Bidirectional and meshed traffic are inherently bursty since
interfaces share their time between receiving and transmitting
frames. External sources offering bursty traffic for a given
frame size and burst size must adjust the inter-burst gap to
achieve a specified average rate of frame transmission.
Mandeville [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Measurement units:
nanoseconds
microseconds
milliseconds
seconds
Issues:
See Also:
burst (3.4.1)
burst size (3.4.2)
3.5 Loads
This group of definitions applies to the rates at which traffic is
offered to any DUT/SUT.
3.5.1 Intended load (Iload)
Definition:
The number of frames per second that an external source
attempts to transmit to a DUT/SUT for forwarding to a specified
output interface or interfaces.
Discussion:
Collisions on CSMA/CD links or the action of congestion control
mechanisms can effect the rate at which an external source of
traffic transmits frames to a DUT/SUT. This makes it useful to
distinguish the load that an external source attempts to apply
to a DUT/SUT and the load it is observed or measured to apply
In the case of Ethernet an external source of traffic MUST
Implement the truncated binary exponential back-off algorithm
to ensure that it is accessing the medium legally
Measurement units:
bits per second
N-octets per second
(N-octets per second / media_maximum-octets per second) x 100
Issues:
Mandeville [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
See Also:
burst (3.4.1)
inter-burst gap (3.4.3)
offered load (3.5.2)
3.5.2 Offered load (Oload)
Definition:
The number of frames per second that an external source can be
observed or measured to transmit to a DUT/SUT for forwarding to
a specified output interface or interfaces.
Discussion:
The load which an external device can be observed to apply to a
DUT/SUT may be less than the intended load due to collisions on
half duplex media or the action of congestion control
mechanisms. This makes it important to distinguish intended
and offered load when analyzing the results of forwarding rate
measurements using bidirectional or fully meshed traffic
Frames which are not successfully transmitted by an external
source of traffic to a DUT/SUT MUST NOT be counted as
transmitted frames when measuring the forwarding rate of a
DUT/SUT.
The frame count on an interface of a DUT/SUT may exceed the
rate at which an external device offers frames due to the
presence of spanning tree BPDUs (Bridge Protocol Data Units) on
802.1D-compliant switches or SNMP frames. Such frames should
be treated as modifiers as described in section 11 of RFC 1944
Measurement units:
bits per second
N-octets per second
(N-octets per second / media_maximum-octets per second) x 100
Issues:
token ring
See Also:
bidirectional traffic (3.2.2)
fully meshed traffic (3.3.3)
intended load (3.5.1)
forwarding rate (3.6.1)
Mandeville [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
3.5.3 Maximum offered load (MOL)
Definition:
The highest number of frames per second that an external source
can transmit to a DUT/SUT for forwarding to a specified output
interface or interfaces.
Discussion:
The maximum load that an external device can apply to a DUT/SUT
may not equal the maximum load allowed by the medium. This
will be the case when an external source lacks the resources
to transmit frames at the minimum legal inter-frame gap or when
it has sufficient resources to transmit frames below the
minimum legal inter-frame gap. Moreover, maximum load may vary
with respect to parameters other than a medium's maximum
theoretical utilization. For example, on those media employing
tokens, maximum load may vary as a function of Token Rotation
Time, Token Holding Time, or the ability to chain multiple
frames to a single token. The maximum load that an external
device applies to a DUT/SUT MUST be specified when measuring
forwarding rates.
Measurement units:
bits per second
N-octets per second
(N-octets per second / media_maximum-octets per second) x 100
Issues:
See Also:
offered load (3.5.2)
3.5.4 Overloading
Definition:
Attempting to load a DUT/SUT in excess of the maximum rate of
transmission allowed by the medium.
Discussion:
Overloading can serve to exercise buffers and buffer allocation
algorithms as well as congestion control mechanisms.
Mandeville [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
The number of input interfaces required to overload one or more
output interfaces of a DUT/SUT will vary according to the media
rates of the interfaces involved.
An external source can also overload an interface by
transmitting frames below the minimum inter-frame gap. A
DUT/SUT MUST forward such frames at intervals equal to or above
the minimum gap specified in standards.
A DUT/SUT using congestion control techniques such as
backpressure or forward pressure may exhibit no frame loss when
a tester attempts to overload one or more of its interfaces.
This should not be exploited to suggest that the DUT/SUT
supports rates of transmission in excess of the maximum rate
allowed by the medium since both techniques reduce the rate at
which the tester offers frames to prevent overloading.
Backpressure achieves this purpose by jamming the transmission
interfaces of the tester and forward pressure by hindering the
tester from gaining fair acces to the medium. Analysis of both
cases should take the distinction between intended load (3.5.1)
and offered load (3.5.2) into account.
Overloading can be achieved with unidirectional, bidirectional
and meshed traffic.
Measurement units:
N-octets per second
(N-octets per second / media_maximum-octets per second) x 100N-
octet
frames per second
Issues:
See Also:
unidirectional traffic (3.2.1)
intended load (3.5.1)
offered load (3.5.2)
forwarding rate (3.6.1)
backpressure (3.7.1)
forward pressure (3.7.2)
3.6 Forwarding rates
This group of definitions applies to the rates at which traffic is
forwarded by any DUT/SUT in response to a stimulus.
Mandeville [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
3.6.1 Forwarding rate (FR)
Definition:
The number of frames per second that a device can be observed
to successfully transmit to the correct destination interface
in response to a specified offered load.
Discussion:
Unlike throughput defined in section 3.17 of RFC 1242,
forwarding rate makes no explicit reference to frame loss.
Forwarding rate refers to the number of frames per second
observed on the output side of the interface under test an
MUST be reported in relation to the offered load. Forwarding
rate can be measured with different traffic orientations and
distributions.
It should be noted that the forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT may be
sensitive to the action of congestion control mechanisms.
Measurement units:
N-octet frames per second
Issues:
See Also:
offered load (3.5.2)
forwarding rate at maximum offered load (3.6.2)
maximum forwarding rate (3.6.3)
3.6.2 Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL)
Definition:
The number of frames per second that a device can be observed
To successfully transmit to the correct destination interface
in response to the maximum offered load.
Discussion:
Forwarding rate at maximum offered load may be less than the
maximum rate at which a device can be observed to successfully
forward traffic.
Mandeville [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
This will be the case when the ability of a device to forward
frames degenerates when offered traffic at maximum load.
Maximum offered load MUST be cited when reporting forwarding
rate at maximum offered load.
Measurement units:
N-octet frames per second
Issues:
See Also:
maximum offered load (3.5.3)
forwarding rate (3.6.1)
maximum forwarding rate (3.6.3)
3.6.3 Maximum forwarding rate (MFR)
Definition:
The highest forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT taken from an
iterative set of forwarding rate measurements.
Discussion:
The forwarding rate of a device may degenerate before maximum
load is reached. The load applied to a device must be cited
when reporting maximum forwarding rate.
The following example illustrates how the terms relative to
loading and forwarding rates are meant to be used. In
particular it shows how the distinction between forwarding rate
at maximum offered load (FRMOL) and maximum forwarding rate
(MFR)can be used to characterize a DUT/SUT.
(A) (B) Column A - Oload
Test Device DUT/SUT Column B - FR
Offered Rate Forwarding Rate
------------ ---------------
1. 14,880 fps 7,400 fps Row 1, Col A - MOL
2. 13,880 fps 8,472 fps Row 1, Col B - FRMOL
3. 12,880 fps 12,880 fps Row 3, Col B - MFR
Measurement units:
N-octet frames per second
Mandeville [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Issues:
See Also:
offered load (3.5.2)
forwarding rates (3.6.1)
forwarding rate at maximum load (3.6.2)
3.7 Congestion control
This group of definitions applies to the behavior of a DUT/SUT when
congestion or contention is present.
3.7.1 Backpressure
Definition:
Any technique used by a DUT/SUT to attempt to avoid frame loss
by impeding external sources of traffic from transmitting
frames to congested interfaces.
Discussion:
Some switches send jam signals, for example preamble bits, back
to traffic sources when their transmit and/or receive buffers
start to overfill. Switches implementing full duplex Ethernet
links may use IEEE 802.3x Flow Control for the same purpose.
Such devices may incur no frame loss when external sources
attempt to offer traffic to congested or overloaded interfaces.
It should be noted that jamming and other flow control methods
may slow all traffic transmitted to congested input interfaces
including traffic intended for uncongested output interfaces.
A DUT/SUT applying backpressure may exhibit no frame loss when
a tester attempts to overload one or more of its interfaces.
This should not be interpreted to suggest that the interfaces
of the DUT/SUT support forwarding rates above the maximum rate
allowed by the medium. In these cases overloading is only
apparent since through the application of backpressure the
DUT/SUT avoids overloading by reducing the rate at which the
tester can offer frames.
Measurement units:
frame loss on congested interface or interfaces
N--octet frames per second between the interface applying
backpressure and an uncongested destination interface
Mandeville [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Issues:
jamming not explicitly described in standards
See Also:
intended load (3.5.1)
offered load (3.5.2)
overloading (3.5.4)
forwarding rate (3.6.1)
forward pressure (3.7.2)
3.7.2 Forward pressure
Definition:
Methods which depart from or otherwise violate a defined
standardized protocol in an attempt to increase the forwarding
performance of a DUT/SUT.
Discussion:
A DUT/SUT may be found to inhibit or abort back-off algorithms
in order to force access to the medium when contention occurs.
It should be noted that the back-off algorithm should be fair
whether the DUT/SUT is in a congested or an uncongested state.
Transmission below the minimum inter-frame gap or the disregard
of flow control primitives fall into this category.
A DUT/SUT applying forward pressure may eliminate all or most
frame loss when a tester attempts to overload one or more of
its interfaces. This should not be interpreted to suggest that
the interfaces of the DUT/SUT can sustain forwarding rates
above the maximum rate allowed by the medium. Overloading in
such cases is only apparent since the application of forward
pressure by the DUT/SUT enables interfaces to relieve saturated
output queues by forcing access to the medium and concomitantly
inhibiting the tester from transmitting frames.
Measurement units:
intervals between frames in microseconds
intervals in microseconds between transmission retries during
16 successive collisions.
Issues:
truncated binary exponential back-off algorithm
Mandeville [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
See Also:
intended load (3.5.1)
offered load (3.5.2)
overloading (3.5.4)
forwarding rate (3.6.1)
backpressure (3.7.1)
3.7.3 Head of line blocking
Definition:
Frame loss or added delay observed on an uncongested output
interface whenever frames are received from an input interface
which is also attempting to forward frames to a congested
output interface.
Discussion:
It is important to verify that a switch does not slow
transmission or drop frames on interfaces which are not
congested whenever overloading on one of its other interfaces
occurs.
Measurement units:
frame loss recorded on an uncongested interface when receiving
frames from an interface which is also forwarding frames to a
congested interface.
Issues:
input buffers
See Also:
unidirectional traffic (3.2.1)
3.8 Address handling
This group of definitions applies to the process of address
resolution which enables a DUT/SUT to forward frames to the correct
destination.
Mandeville [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
3.8.1 Address caching capacity
Definition:
The number of MAC addresses per n interfaces, per module or per
device that a DUT/SUT can cache and successfully forward frames
to without flooding or dropping frames.
Discussion:
Users building networks will want to know how many nodes they
can connect to a DUT/SUT. This makes it necessary to verify
the number of MAC addresses that can be assigned per n
interfaces, per module and per chassis before a DUT/SUT begins
flooding frames.
Measurement units:
number of MAC addresses per n interfaces, per module and/or per
chassis
Issues:
See Also:
Address learning rate (3.8.2)
3.8.2 Address learning rate
Definition:
The maximum rate at which a switch can learn new MAC addresses
Before starting to flood or drop frames.
Discussion:
Users may want to know how long it takes a switch to build its
address tables. This information is useful to have when
considering how long it takes a network to come up when many
users log on in the morning or after a network crash.
Measurement units:
frames per second with each successive frame sent to the switch
containing a different source address.
Issues:
Mandeville [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
See Also:
address caching capacity (3.8.1)
3.8.3 Flood count
Definition:
Frames forwarded to interfaces which do not correspond to the
destination MAC address information when traffic is offered to
a DUT/SUT for forwarding.
Discussion:
When recording throughput statistics it is important to check
that frames have been forwarded to their proper destinations.
Flooded frames MUST NOT be counted as received frames. Both
known and unknown unicast frames can be flooded.
Measurement units:
N-octet valid frames
Issues:
spanning tree BPDUs.
See Also:
address caching capacity (3.8.1)
3.9 Errored frame filtering
This group of definitions applies to frames with errors which a
DUT/SUT may filter.
3.9.1 Errored frames
Definition:
Frames which are over-sized, under-sized, misaligned or with an
errored Frame Check Sequence.
Mandeville [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Discussion:
Switches, unlike IEEE 802.1d compliant bridges, do not
necessarily filter all types of illegal frames. Some switches,
for example, which do not store frames before forwarding them
to their destination interfaces may not filter over-sized
frames (jabbers) or verify the validity of the Frame Check
Sequence field. Other illegal frames are under-sized frames
(runts) and misaligned frames.
Measurement units:
n/a
Issues:
See Also:
3.10 Broadcasts
This group of definitions applies to MAC layer and network layer
broadcast frames.
3.10.1 Broadcast forwarding rate
Definition:
The number of broadcast frames per second that a DUT/SUT can be
observed to deliver to all interfaces located within a
broadcast domain in response to a specified offered load of
frames directed to the broadcast MAC address.
Discussion:
There is no standard forwarding mechanism used by switches to
forward broadcast frames. It is useful to determine the
broadcast forwarding rate for frames switched between
interfaces on the same card, interfaces on different cards in
the same chassis and interfaces on different chassis linked
together over backbone connections. The terms maximum
broadcast forwarding rate and broadcast forwarding rate at
maximum load follow directly from the terms already defined for
forwarding rate measurements in section 3.6 above.
Measurement units:
N-octet frames per second
Mandeville [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
Issues:
See Also:
forwarding rate at maximum load (3.6.2)
maximum forwarding rate (3.6.3)
broadcast latency (3.10.2)
3.10.2 Broadcast latency
Definition:
The time required by a DUT/SUT to forward a broadcast frame to
each interface located within a broadcast domain.
Discussion:
Since there is no standard way for switches to process
broadcast frames, broadcast latency may not be the same on all
receiving interfaces of a switching device. The latency
measurements SHOULD be bit oriented as described in 3.8 of
RFC 1242. It is useful to determine broadcast latency for
frames forwarded between interfaces on the same card,
interfaces on different cards in the same chassis and
interfaces on different chassis linked together over backbone
connections.
Measurement units:
nanoseconds
microseconds
milliseconds
seconds
Issues:
See Also:
broadcast forwarding rate (3.10.1)
4. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly effect the security of the
Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
performed on devices or systems connected to operating networks.
Mandeville [Page 24]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Switching Devices August 1997
The document points out that switching devices may violate the
IEEE 802.3 standard by transmitting frames below the minimum
interframe gap or unfairly accessing the medium by inhibiting the
backoff algorithm. Although such violations do not directly
engender breaches in security, they may perturb the normal
functioning of other interworking devices by obstructing their
access to the medium. Their use on the Internet or on corporate
networks should be discouraged.
5. References:
1. RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect
Devices"
2. RFC 1944 "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
Devices"
6. Acknowledgments
A special thanks goes to the IETF BenchMarking Methodology
WorkGroup for the many suggestions it collectively made to help
complete this RFC. Kevin Dubray (Bay Networks), Jean-Christophe
Bestaux (ENL), Ajay Shah (WG), Henry Hamon (Netcom Systems), Stan
Kopek (3Com) and Doug Ruby (Prominet) provided valuable input at
various stages of this project.
7. Author's Address
Robert Mandeville
European Network Laboratories (ENL)
33, Boulevard Henri IV
75004 Paris
France
phone: + 33 1 39 44 12 05
mobile phone + 33 6 07 47 67 10
fax: + 33 1 39 44 12 06
email: bob.mandeville@eunet.fr
Mandeville [Page 25]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/