[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                          A. Morton
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Uttaro
Updates: ???? (if approved)                                    AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational                              July 2, 2019
Expires: January 3, 2020


               Benchmarks and Methods for Multihomed EVPN
                  draft-morton-bmwg-multihome-evpn-02

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 January 3, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


   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 Full Mesh Throughput Characterization . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Address Learning Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Unicast Flows    5
     5.3.  Detailed Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  Benchmark Calculations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.6.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Procedure for Mass Withdrawal Characterization  . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Address Learning Phase  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows  . . . .   7
     6.3.  Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Benchmark Calculations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

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.




Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


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

   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 one of the Ethernet Segment links (or when configuration changes
   take place).

   Although 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 (such as address withdrawl) 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 some key
   multihoming scenarios implemented on a Device Under Test (DUT) or
   System Under Test (SUT).

3.  Motivation

   The Multihoming scenarios described in this memo emphsize features
   with practical value to the industry that have seen deployment.
   Therefore, these scenarios derserve further attention that follows
   from benchmarking activities and further study.

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 January 3, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


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

       Figure 1 SUT for Throughput and other Ethernet Segment Tests

   In Figure 1, 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 every PE, and be capable
   of simulateneously sending and receiving frames on all ports with
   connectivity.  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.

   The tester SHALL be capable of generating and receiving a full mesh
   of Unicast flows, as described in section 3.0 of [RFC2889]:

   "In fully meshed traffic, each interface of a DUT/SUT is set up to
   both receive and transmit frames to all the other interfaces under
   test."

   Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] and [RFC2889]
   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 implements MPLS-LDP to
   provide connectivity between multiple PE - ESI - CE locations.








Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


    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 ESIs that a network
   with multiple PE - ESI - CE locations can support.

5.  Procedure for Full Mesh Throughput Characterization

   Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT/SUT to process frames
   between CE and one or more PEs 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 to update its address tables properly."  [RFC2889]

5.2.  Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Unicast 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,




Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


   1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, as per [RFC2544]).  Frame formats MUST be
   specified, they are as described in section 4 of [RFC2889].

5.3.  Detailed Procedure

   The Procedure SHALL follow section 5.1 of [RFC2889].

   Specifically, the Throughput measurement parameters found in section
   5.1.2 of [RFC2889] SHALL be configured and reported with the results.

   The procedure for transmitting Frames on each port is described in
   section 5.1.3 of [RFC2889] and SHALL be followed (adapting to the
   number of ports in the test setup).

   Once the traffic is started, the procedure for Measurements described
   in section 5.1.4 of [RFC2889] SHALL be followed (adapting to the
   number of ports in the test setup).  The section on Throughput
   measurement (5.1.4 of [RFC2889]) SHALL be followed.

   In the case that one or more of the CE and PE are virtual
   implementations, then the search algorithm of [TST009] that provides
   consistent results when faced with host transient activity SHOULD be
   used (Binary Search with Loss Verification).

5.4.  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).

5.5.  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.







Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


5.6.  Reporting

   The recommendation for graphical reporting provided in Section 5.1.4
   of [RFC2889]) SHOULD be followed, along with the specifications in
   Section 7 below.

6.  Procedure for Mass Withdrawal Characterization

   Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT/SUT 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 transmitted 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).  See section 5 above for
   additional requirements, especially section 5.3.

   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).



Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


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.

   +----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+
   | 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.






Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


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 Sudhin Jacob for his review and comments on the bmwg-list.

   Thanks to Aman Shaikh for sharing his comments on the draft directly
   with the authors.

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>.



Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


   [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>.

   [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>.



Morton & Uttaro          Expires January 3, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Multihomed EVPN                   July 2019


   [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]   Morton, R. A., "ETSI GS NFV-TST 009 V3.2.1 (2019-06),
              "Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3;
              Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and
              Measurement Methods for NFVI"", June 2019,
              <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

   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 January 3, 2020               [Page 11]


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