[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                          A. Morton
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Uttaro
Updates: ???? (if approved)                                    AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational                          October 23, 2018
Expires: April 26, 2019


               Benchmarks and Methods for Multihomed EVPN
                  draft-morton-bmwg-multihome-evpn-00

Abstract

   Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect
   Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544.  Key
   benchmarks applicable to restoration and multi-homed sites are in RFC
   6894.  This memo applies these methods to Multihomed nodes
   implemented on Ethernet Virtual Private Networks (EVPN).

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Test Setups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Procedure for Throughput Characterization . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Address Learning Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows  . . . .   5
     5.3.  Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Benchmark Calculations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Procedure for Mass Withdrawal Characterization  . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Address Learning Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows  . . . .   6
     6.3.  Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Benchmark Calculations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined
   in[RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and
   [RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944].

   This memo recognizes the importance of Ethernet Virtual Private
   Network (EVPN) Multihoming connectivity scenarios, where a CE device
   is connected to 2 or more PEs using an instance of an Ethernet
   Segment.

   In an all-active or Active-Active scenario, CE-PE traffic is load-
   balanced across the two or more PEs.



Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   Mass-withdrawal of routes may take place when an autodiscovery route
   is used on a per Ethernet Segment basis, and there is a link failure
   on the one of the Ethernet Segment links (or configuration changes
   take place).

   Although the EVPN depends on address-learning in the control-plane,
   the Ethernet Segment Instance is permitted to use "the method best
   suited to the CE: data-plane learning, IEEE 802.1x, the Link Layer
   Discovery Protocol (LLDP), IEEE 802.1aq, Address Resolution Protocol
   (ARP), management plane, or other protocols" [RFC7432].

   This memo seeks to benchmark these important cases (and others).

2.  Scope and Goals

   The scope of this memo is to define a method to unambiguously perform
   tests, measure the benchmark(s), and report the results for Capacity
   of EVPN Multihoming connectivity scenarios, and other key restoration
   activities covering link failure in the Active-Active scenario.

   The goal is to provide more efficient test procedures where possible,
   and to expand reporting with additional interpretation of the
   results.  The tests described in this memo address the cases where

3.  Motivation

   To be provided.

   .

4.  Test Setups

   For simple Capacity/Throughput Benchmarks, the Test Setup MUST be
   consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or Figure 2 when the tester's
   sender and receiver are different devices.
















Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


            +--------+                    ,-----.     +--------+
            |        |                   /       \    |        |
            |        |                 /(   PE    ....|        |
            |        |                /  \    1  /    |        |
            | Test   |     ,-----.   /    `-----'     | Test   |
            |        |    /       \ /                 |        |
            | Device |...(   CE    X                  | Device |
            |        |    \    1  / \                 |        |
            |        |     `-----'   \    ,-----.     |        |
            |        |                \  /       \    |        |
            |        |                 \(   PE    ....|        |
            +--------+                   \    2  /    +--------+
                                          `-----'

       Figure 1 SUT for Throughput and other Ethernet Segment Tests

   In this case, the System Under Test (SUT) is comprised of a single CE
   device and two or more PE devices.  The tester SHALL be connected to
   all CE and PE, and be capable of simulateneously sending and
   receiving frames on all ports in use.  The tester SHALL be capable of
   generating multiple flows (according to a 5-tuple definition, or any
   sub-set of the 5-tuple).  The tester SHALL be able to control the IP
   capacity of sets of individual flows, and the presence of sets of
   flows on specific interface ports.

   Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] MUST be
   included, unless explicitly modified in the next section.

   The ingress and egress link speeds and link layer protocols MUST be
   specified and used to compute the maximum theoretical frame rate when
   respecting the minimum inter-frame gap.

   A second test case is where a BGP backbone using MPLS-LDP to
   interconnects multiple PE - ESI - CE locations.

















Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


    Test                                                          Test
    Device                                                        Device
                              EVI-1
   +---+                    ,-----.                              +---+
   |   |            ESI    /       \                             |   |
   |   |               1 /(   PE    .....                 ESI    |   |
   |   |                /  \    1  /     \          EVI      2   |   |
   |   |     ,-----.   /    `-----'       \       ,-----.    +--+|   |
   |   |    /       \ /                    \     /       \   |  ||   |
   |   |...(   CE    X                      X...(   PE    ...|CE||   |
   |   |    \    1  / \                    /     \    3  /   | 2||   |
   |   |     `-----'   \    ,-----.       /       `-----'    +--+|   |
   |   |                \  /       \     /                       |   |
   |   |                 \(   PE    ..../                        |   |
   +---+                   \    2  /                             +---+
                            `-----'
                              EVI-2

      Figure 2 SUT with BGP & MPLS interconnecting multiple PE-ESI-CE
                                 locations

   All Link speeds MUST be reported, along with complete device
   configurations in the SUT and Test Device(s).

   Additional Test Setups and configurations will be provided in this
   section, after review.

   One capacity benchmark pertains to the number of ESI that a network
   with multiple PE - ESI - CE locations can support.

5.  Procedure for Throughput Characterization

   Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process frames
   between CE and one or more PE in a multihomed connectivity scenario.
   Figure 1 gives the test setup.

   The Procedure follows.

5.1.  Address Learning Phase

   "For every address, learning frames MUST be sent to the DUT/SUT to
   allow the DUT/SUT update its address tables properly."  [RFC2889]

5.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows

   Each trial in the test requires Confiuring a number of flows (from
   100 to 100k) and a fixed frame size (64 octets to 128, 256, 512,
   1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, as per [RFC2544]).



Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   The Procedure SHALL follow section 5.1 of [RFC2889].

5.3.  Test Repetition

   The test MUST be repeated N times for each frame size in the subset
   list, and each Throughput value made available for further processing
   (below).

5.4.  Benchmark Calculations

   For each Frame size, calculate the following summary statistics for
   Throughput values over the N tests:

   o  Average (Benchmark)

   o  Minimum

   o  Maximum

   o  Standard Deviation

   Comparison will determine how the load was balanced among PEs.

6.  Procedure for Mass Withdrawal Characterization

   Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process frames
   between CE and one or more PE in a multihomed connectivity scenario
   when a mass withdrawal takes place.  Figure 2 gives the test setup.

   The Procedure follows.

6.1.  Address Learning Phase

   "For every address, learning frames MUST be sent to the DUT/SUT to
   allow the DUT/SUT update its address tables properly."  [RFC2889]

6.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows

   Each trial in the test requires Confiuring a number of flows (from
   100 to 100k) and a fixed frame size (64 octets to 128, 256, 512,
   1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, as per [RFC2544]).

   The Offered Load SHALL be offered at the Throughput level
   corrsponding to previously determined for the selected Frame size and
   number of Flows in use.

   The Procedure SHALL follow section 5.1 of [RFC2889] (except there is
   no need to search for the Throughput level).



Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   When traffic has been sent for 5 seconds one of the CE-PE links on
   the ESI SHALL be disabled, and the time of this action SHALL be
   recorded for further calculations.  For example, if the CE1 link to
   PE1 is disabled, this should trigger a Mass withdrawal of EVI-1
   addresses, and the subsequent re-routing of traffic to PE2.

   Frame losses are expected to be recorded during the restoration time.
   Time for restoration may be estimated as described in section 3.5
   of[RFC6412].

6.3.  Test Repetition

   The test MUST be repeated N times for each frame size in the subset
   list, and each restoration time value made available for further
   processing (below).

6.4.  Benchmark Calculations

   For each Frame size and number of flows, calculate the following
   summary statistics for Loss (or Time to return to Throughput level
   after restoration) values over the N tests:

   o  Average (Benchmark)

   o  Minimum

   o  Maximum

   o  Standard Deviation

7.  Reporting

   The results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row
   for each of the tested frame sizes and Number of Flows.  There SHOULD
   be columns for the frame size with number of flows, and for the
   resultant average frame count (or time) for each type of data stream
   tested.

   The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported.

   The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete
   tests SHOULD also be reported.

   The Corrected DUT Restoration Time SHOULD also be reported, as
   applicable.






Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   +----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+
   | Frame Size,    | Ave Benchmark,    | Min,Max,StdDev | Calculated  |
   | octets + #     | fps, frames or    |                | Time, Sec   |
   | Flows          | time              |                |             |
   +----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+
   | 64,100         | 26000             | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004     |
   +----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+

                Throughput or Loss/Restoration Time Results

   Static and configuration parameters:

   Number of test repetitions, N

   Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames.

8.  Security Considerations

   Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
   technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
   environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
   [RFC2544].

   The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
   and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
   traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
   management network.  See [RFC6815].

   Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
   solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.

   Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
   benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network security arising
   from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
   networks.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo makes no requests of IANA.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to








Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
              Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
              July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.

   [RFC1944]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 1944,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1944, May 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1944>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.

   [RFC2889]  Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology
              for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>.

   [RFC5180]  Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
              Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
              Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.

   [RFC6201]  Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
              "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.

   [RFC6412]  Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
              for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
              Convergence", RFC 6412, DOI 10.17487/RFC6412, November
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6412>.

   [RFC6815]  Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton,
              "Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production
              Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815>.



Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   [RFC6985]  Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
              Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [OPNFV-2017]
              Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane
              Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June
              2017,
              <https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/10293193/
              VSPERF-Dataplane-Perf-Cap-Bench.pptx?api=v2>.

   [RFC8239]  Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking
              Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8239>.

   [TST009]   ETSI Network Function Virtualization ISG, "ETSI GS NFV-TST
              009 V3.1.1 (2018-10), "Network Functions Virtualisation
              (NFV) Release 3; Testing; Specification of Networking
              Benchmarks and Measurement Methods for NFVI"", October
              2018, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-
              TST/001_099/009/03.01.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030101p.pdf>.

   [VSPERF-b2b]
              Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)",
              June 2017, <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
              Traffic+Generator+Testing#TrafficGeneratorTesting-
              AppendixB:Back2BackTestingTimeSeries(fromCI)>.

   [VSPERF-BSLV]
              Morton, A. and S. Rao, "Evolution of Repeatability in
              Benchmarking: Fraser Plugfest (Summary for IETF BMWG)",
              July 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/
              slides-102-bmwg-evolution-of-repeatability-in-
              benchmarking-fraser-plugfest-summary-for-ietf-bmwg-00>.

Authors' Addresses







Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                October 2018


   Al Morton
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown,, NJ  07748
   USA

   Phone: +1 732 420 1571
   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192
   Email: acm@research.att.com


   Jim Uttaro
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown,, NJ  07748
   USA

   Email: uttaro@att.com

































Morton & Uttaro          Expires April 26, 2019                [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/