draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-04.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2544 (if approved) November 16, 2020 Updates: 2544 (if approved) December 18, 2020
Intended status: Informational Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 20, 2021 Expires: June 21, 2021
Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544 Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544
draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03 draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-04
Abstract Abstract
Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect
Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. This memo Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. This memo
updates the procedures of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames updates the procedures of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames
Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience. Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience.
This memo updates Section 26.4 of RFC 2544. This memo updates Section 26.4 of RFC 2544.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Test Repetition and Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. Test Repetition and Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined in The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined in
[RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and [RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and
[RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944]. [RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944].
Over time, the benchmarking community has updated [RFC2544] several Over time, the benchmarking community has updated [RFC2544] several
times, including the Device Reset Benchmark [RFC6201], and the times, including the Device Reset Benchmark [RFC6201], and the
important Applicability Statement [RFC6815] concerning use outside important Applicability Statement [RFC6815] concerning use outside
the Isolated Test Environment (ITE) required for accurate the Isolated Test Environment (ITE) required for accurate
skipping to change at page 3, line 14 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
Recent testing experience with the Back-to-back Frame test and Recent testing experience with the Back-to-back Frame test and
Benchmark in Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] indicates that an update is Benchmark in Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] indicates that an update is
warranted [OPNFV-2017] [VSPERF-b2b]. In particular, analysis of the warranted [OPNFV-2017] [VSPERF-b2b]. In particular, analysis of the
results indicates that buffer size matters when compensating for results indicates that buffer size matters when compensating for
interruptions of software packet processing, and this finding interruptions of software packet processing, and this finding
increases the importance of the Back-to-back frame characterization increases the importance of the Back-to-back frame characterization
described here. This memo describes additional rationale and described here. This memo describes additional rationale and
provides the updated method. provides the updated method.
[RFC2544] (which Obsoletes [RFC1944]) provides its own Requirements [RFC2544] (which obsoletes [RFC1944]) provides its own Requirements
Language consistent with [RFC2119], since [RFC1944] pre-dates Language consistent with [RFC2119], since [RFC1944] pre-dates
[RFC2119] and all three memos share common authorship. [RFC2119] and all three memos share common authorship.
Today,[RFC8174] clarifies the usage of Requirements Language, so the Today,[RFC8174] clarifies the usage of Requirements Language, so the
requirements presented in this memo are expressed in [RFC8174] terms, requirements presented in this memo are expressed in [RFC8174] terms,
and intended for those performing/reporting laboratory tests to and intended for those performing/reporting laboratory tests to
improve clarity and repeatability, and for those designing devices improve clarity and repeatability, and for those designing devices
that facilitate these tests. that facilitate these tests.
2. Scope and Goals 2. Scope and Goals
The scope of this memo is to define an updated method to The scope of this memo is to define an updated method to
unambiguously perform tests, measure the benchmark(s), and report the unambiguously perform tests, measure the benchmark(s), and report the
results for Back-to-back Frames (presently described Section 26.4 of results for Back-to-back Frames (presently described in Section 26.4
[RFC2544]). of [RFC2544]).
The goal is to provide more efficient test procedures where possible, The goal is to provide more efficient test procedures where possible,
and to expand reporting with additional interpretation of the and to expand reporting with additional interpretation of the
results. The tests described in this memo address the cases in which results. The tests described in this memo address the cases in which
the maximum frame rate of a single ingress port cannot be transferred the maximum frame rate of a single ingress port cannot be transferred
loss-free to an egress port (for some frame sizes of interest). loss-free to an egress port (for some frame sizes of interest).
[RFC2544] Benchmarks rely on test conditions with constant frame [RFC2544] Benchmarks rely on test conditions with constant frame
sizes, with the goal of understanding what network device capability sizes, with the goal of understanding what network device capability
has been tested. Tests with the smallest size stress the header has been tested. Tests with the smallest size stress the header
processing capacity, and tests with the largest size stress the processing capacity, and tests with the largest size stress the
overall bit processing capacity. Tests with sizes in-between may overall bit processing capacity. Tests with sizes in-between may
determine the transition between these two capacities. However, determine the transition between these two capacities. However,
conditions simultaneously sending multiple frame sizes, such as those conditions simultaneously sending a mixture of Internet frame sizes
described in [RFC6985], MUST NOT be used in Back-to-back Frame (IMIX), such as those described in [RFC6985], MUST NOT be used in
testing. Back-to-back Frame testing.
Section 3 of [RFC8239] describes buffer size testing for physical Section 3 of [RFC8239] describes buffer size testing for physical
networking devices in a Data Center. The [RFC8239] methods measure networking devices in a data center. The [RFC8239] methods measure
buffer latency directly with traffic on multiple ingress ports that buffer latency directly with traffic on multiple ingress ports that
overload an egress port on the Device Under Test (DUT) and are not overload an egress port on the Device Under Test (DUT) and are not
subject to the revised calculations presented in this memo. subject to the revised calculations presented in this memo.
Likewise, the methods of [RFC8239] SHOULD be used for test cases Likewise, the methods of [RFC8239] SHOULD be used for test cases
where the egress port buffer is the known point of overload. where the egress port buffer is the known point of overload.
3. Motivation 3. Motivation
Section 3.1 of [RFC1242] describes the rationale for the Back-to-back Section 3.1 of [RFC1242] describes the rationale for the Back-to-back
Frames Benchmark. To summarize, there are several reasons that Frames Benchmark. To summarize, there are several reasons that
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 39
minimum frame spacing). minimum frame spacing).
In reality, there are many buffers and packet header processing steps In reality, there are many buffers and packet header processing steps
in a typical DUT. The simplified model used in these calculations in a typical DUT. The simplified model used in these calculations
for the DUT includes a packet header processing function with limited for the DUT includes a packet header processing function with limited
rate of operation, as shown below: rate of operation, as shown below:
|------------ DUT --------| |------------ DUT --------|
Generator -> Ingress -> Buffer -> HeaderProc -> Egress -> Receiver Generator -> Ingress -> Buffer -> HeaderProc -> Egress -> Receiver
So, in the back2back frame testing: So, in the Back-to-back Frame testing:
1. The Ingress burst arrives at Max Theoretical Frame Rate, and 1. The ingress burst arrives at Max Theoretical Frame Rate, and
initially the frames are buffered. initially the frames are buffered.
2. The packet header processing function (HeaderProc) operates at 2. The packet header processing function (HeaderProc) operates at
the "Measured Throughput" (Section 26.1 of [RFC2544]), removing the "Measured Throughput" (Section 26.1 of [RFC2544]), removing
frames from the buffer (this is the best approximation we have). frames from the buffer (this is the best approximation we have).
3. Frames that have been processed are clearly not in the buffer, so 3. Frames that have been processed are clearly not in the buffer, so
the Corrected DUT buffer time equation (Section 5.4) estimates the Corrected DUT buffer time equation (Section 5.4) estimates
and removes the frames that the DUT forwarded on Egress during and removes the frames that the DUT forwarded on egress during
the burst. We define buffer time as the number of Frames the burst. We define buffer time as the number of frames
occupying the buffer divided by the Maximum Theoretical Frame occupying the buffer divided by the Maximum Theoretical Frame
Rate (on ingress) for the Frame size under test. Rate (on ingress) for the frame size under test.
4. A helpful concept is the buffer filling rate, which is the 4. A helpful concept is the buffer filling rate, which is the
difference between the Max Theoretical Frame Rate (ingress) and difference between the Max Theoretical Frame Rate (ingress) and
the Measured Throughput (HeaderProc on egress). If the actual the Measured Throughput (HeaderProc on egress). If the actual
buffer size in frames was known, the time to fill the buffer buffer size in frames was known, the time to fill the buffer
during a measurement can be calculated using the filling rate as during a measurement can be calculated using the filling rate as
a check on measurements. However, the Buffer in the model a check on measurements. However, the buffer in the model
represents many buffers of different sizes in the DUT data path. represents many buffers of different sizes in the DUT data path.
Knowledge of approximate buffer storage size (in time or bytes) may Knowledge of approximate buffer storage size (in time or bytes) may
be useful to estimate whether frame losses will occur if DUT be useful to estimate whether frame losses will occur if DUT
forwarding is temporarily suspended in a production deployment, due forwarding is temporarily suspended in a production deployment, due
to an unexpected interruption of frame processing (an interruption of to an unexpected interruption of frame processing (an interruption of
duration greater than the estimated buffer would certainly cause lost duration greater than the estimated buffer would certainly cause lost
frames). In Section 5, the calculations for the correct buffer time frames). In Section 5, the calculations for the correct buffer time
use the combination of offered load at Max Theoretical Frame Rate and use the combination of offered load at Max Theoretical Frame Rate and
header processing speed at 100% of Measured Throughput. Other header processing speed at 100% of Measured Throughput. Other
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 7, line 42
5. Back-to-back Frames 5. Back-to-back Frames
Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to- Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
back frames as defined in [RFC1242]. back frames as defined in [RFC1242].
The Procedure follows. The Procedure follows.
5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes 5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes
From the list of RECOMMENDED Frame sizes (Section 9 of [RFC2544]), From the list of RECOMMENDED frame sizes (Section 9 of [RFC2544]),
select the subset of Frame sizes whose measured Throughput (during select the subset of frame sizes whose measured Throughput (during
prerequisite testing) was less than the maximum theoretical Frame prerequisite testing) was less than the Maximum Theoretical Frame
Rate of the DUT/test-set-up. These are the only Frame sizes where it Rate of the DUT/test-set-up. These are the only frame sizes where it
is possible to produce a burst of frames that cause the DUT buffers is possible to produce a burst of frames that cause the DUT buffers
to fill and eventually overflow, producing one or more discarded to fill and eventually overflow, producing one or more discarded
frames. frames.
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size 5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size
Each trial in the test requires the tester to send a burst of frames Each trial in the test requires the tester to send a burst of frames
(after idle time) with the minimum inter-frame gap, and to count the (after idle time) with the minimum inter-frame gap, and to count the
corresponding frames forwarded by the DUT. corresponding frames forwarded by the DUT.
The duration of the trial MUST be at least 2 seconds, to allow DUT The duration of the trial includes three REQUIRED components:
buffers to deplete.
1. The time to send the burst of frames (at the back-to-back rate),
determined by the search algorithm.
2. The time to receive the transferred burst of frames (at the
[RFC2544] Throughput rate), possibly truncated by buffer
overflow, and certainly including the latency of the DUT.
3. At least 2 seconds not overlapping the time to receive the burst
(2.), to ensure that DUT buffers have depleted. Longer times
MUST be used when conditions warrant, such as when buffer times
>2 seconds are measured or when burst sending times are >2
seconds, but care is needed since this time component directly
increases trial duration and many trials and tests comprise a
complete benchmarking study.
The upper search limit for the time to send each burst MUST be
configurable, to values as high as 30 seconds (buffer time results
reported at or near the configured upper limit are likely invalid,
and the test MUST be repeated with a higher search limit).
If all frames have been received, the tester increases the length of If all frames have been received, the tester increases the length of
the burst according to the search algorithm and performs another the burst according to the search algorithm and performs another
trial. trial.
If the received frame count is less than the number of frames in the If the received frame count is less than the number of frames in the
burst, then the limit of DUT processing and buffering may have been burst, then the limit of DUT processing and buffering may have been
exceeded, and the burst length is determined by the search algorithm exceeded, and the burst length is determined by the search algorithm
for the next trial (the burst length is typically reduced, but see for the next trial (the burst length is typically reduced, but see
below). below).
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 34
determined from the series of trials. determined from the series of trials.
5.3. Test Repetition and Benchmark 5.3. Test Repetition and Benchmark
On this topic, Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] requires: On this topic, Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] requires:
The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated
at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being
reported. reported.
Therefore, the Benchmark for Back-to-back Frames is the average of Therefore, the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark is the average of burst
burst length values over repeated tests to determine the longest length values over repeated tests to determine the longest burst of
burst of frames that the DUT can successfully process and buffer frames that the DUT can successfully process and buffer without frame
without frame loss. Each of the repeated tests completes an loss. Each of the repeated tests completes an independent search
independent search process. process.
In this update, the test MUST be repeated N times (the number of In this update, the test MUST be repeated N times (the number of
repetitions is now a variable that must be reported),for each frame repetitions is now a variable that must be reported),for each frame
size in the subset list, and each Back-to-back Frame value made size in the subset list, and each Back-to-back Frame value made
available for further processing (below). available for further processing (below).
5.4. Benchmark Calculations 5.4. Benchmark Calculations
For each Frame size, calculate the following summary statistics for For each frame size, calculate the following summary statistics for
longest Back-to-back Frame values over the N tests: longest Back-to-back Frame values over the N tests:
o Average (Benchmark) o Average (Benchmark)
o Minimum o Minimum
o Maximum o Maximum
o Standard Deviation o Standard Deviation
Further, calculate the Implied DUT Buffer Time and the Corrected DUT Further, calculate the Implied DUT Buffer Time and the Corrected DUT
Buffer Time in seconds, as follows: Buffer Time in seconds, as follows:
Implied DUT Buffer Time = Implied DUT Buffer Time =
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 17
o Standard Deviation o Standard Deviation
Further, calculate the Implied DUT Buffer Time and the Corrected DUT Further, calculate the Implied DUT Buffer Time and the Corrected DUT
Buffer Time in seconds, as follows: Buffer Time in seconds, as follows:
Implied DUT Buffer Time = Implied DUT Buffer Time =
Average num of Back-to-back Frames / Max Theoretical Frame Rate Average num of Back-to-back Frames / Max Theoretical Frame Rate
The formula above is simply expressing the Burst of Frames in units The formula above is simply expressing the burst of frames in units
of time. of time.
The next step is to apply a correction factor that accounts for the The next step is to apply a correction factor that accounts for the
DUT's frame forwarding operation during the test (assuming the simple DUT's frame forwarding operation during the test (assuming the simple
model of the DUT composed of a buffer and a forwarding function, model of the DUT composed of a buffer and a forwarding function,
described in Section 3). described in Section 3).
Corrected DUT Buffer Time = Corrected DUT Buffer Time =
/ \ / \
Implied DUT |Implied DUT Measured Throughput | Implied DUT |Implied DUT Measured Throughput |
= Buffer Time - |Buffer Time * -------------------------- | = Buffer Time - |Buffer Time * -------------------------- |
| Max Theoretical Frame Rate | | Max Theoretical Frame Rate |
\ / \ /
where: where:
1. The "Measured Throughput" is the [RFC2544] Throughput Benchmark 1. The "Measured Throughput" is the [RFC2544] Throughput Benchmark
for the frame size tested, as augmented by methods including the for the frame size tested, as augmented by methods including the
Binary Search with Loss Verification algorithm in [TST009] where Binary Search with Loss Verification algorithm in [TST009] where
applicable, and MUST be expressed in Frames per second in this applicable, and MUST be expressed in frames per second in this
equation. equation.
2. The "Max Theoretical Frame Rate" is a calculated value for the 2. The "Max Theoretical Frame Rate" is a calculated value for the
interface speed and link layer technology used, and MUST be interface speed and link layer technology used, and MUST be
expressed in Frames per second in this equation. expressed in frames per second in this equation.
The term on the far right in the formula for Corrected DUT Buffer The term on the far right in the formula for Corrected DUT Buffer
Time accounts for all the frames in the Burst that were transmitted Time accounts for all the frames in the Burst that were transmitted
by the DUT *while the Burst of frames were sent in*. So, these frames by the DUT *while the Burst of frames were sent in*. So, these frames
are not in the Buffer and the Buffer size is more accurately are not in the buffer and the buffer size is more accurately
estimated by excluding them. estimated by excluding them.
6. Reporting 6. Reporting
The back-to-back results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table The back-to-back frame results SHOULD be reported in the format of a
with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be
columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame count columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame count
for each type of data stream tested. for each type of data stream tested.
The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported. The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported.
The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete
tests SHOULD also be reported (they are referred to as tests SHOULD also be reported (they are referred to as
"Min,Max,StdDev" in the table below). "Min,Max,StdDev" in the table below).
The Corrected DUT Buffer Time SHOULD also be reported. The Corrected DUT Buffer Time SHOULD also be reported.
skipping to change at page 11, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 32
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| Frame Size, | Ave B2B | Min,Max,StdDev | Corrected Buff | | Frame Size, | Ave B2B | Min,Max,StdDev | Corrected Buff |
| octets | Length, frames | | Time, Sec | | octets | Length, frames | | Time, Sec |
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| 64 | 26000 | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004 | | 64 | 26000 | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004 |
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
Back-to-Back Frame Results Back-to-Back Frame Results
Static and configuration parameters: Static and configuration parameters (reported with the table above):
Number of test repetitions, N Number of test repetitions, N
Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames. Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames.
If the tester has a specific (actual) frame rate of interest (less If the tester has a specific (actual) frame rate of interest (less
than the Throughput rate), it is useful to estimate the buffer time than the Throughput rate), it is useful to estimate the buffer time
at that actual frame rate: at that actual frame rate:
Actual Buffer Time = Actual Buffer Time =
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 17
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
of[RFC2544]. of[RFC2544].
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network. See [RFC6815]. management network. See [RFC6815].
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying Further, benchmarking is performed on an "opaque-box" (a.k.a.
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. "black-box") basis, relying solely on measurements observable
external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for The DUT developers are commonly independent from the personnel and
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising institutions conducting benchmarking studies. DUT developers might
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production have incentives to alter the performance of the DUT if the test
networks. conditions can be detected. Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in
the DUT/SUT specifically for benchmarking purposes. Procedures
described in this document are not designed to detect such activity.
Additional testing outside of the scope of this document would be
needed and has been used successfully in the past to discover such
malpractices.
Any implications for network security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD
be identical in the lab and in production networks.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA. This memo makes no requests of IANA.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Trevor Cooper, Sridhar Rao, and Martin Klozik of the VSPERF Thanks to Trevor Cooper, Sridhar Rao, and Martin Klozik of the VSPERF
project for many contributions to the testing [VSPERF-b2b]. Yoshiaki project for many contributions to the early testing [VSPERF-b2b].
Itou has also investigated the topic, and made useful suggestions. Yoshiaki Itou has also investigated the topic, and made useful
Maciek Konstantyowicz and Vratko Polak also provided many comments suggestions. Maciek Konstantyowicz and Vratko Polak also provided
and suggestions based on extensive integration testing and resulting many comments and suggestions based on extensive integration testing
search algorithm proposals - the most up-to-date feedback possible. and resulting search algorithm proposals - the most up-to-date
Tim Carlin also provided comments and support for the draft. Warren feedback possible. Tim Carlin also provided comments and support for
Kumari's review improved readability in several key passages. the draft. Warren Kumari's review improved readability in several
key passages. David Black, Martin Duke, and Scott Bradner's comments
improved the clarity and configuration advice on trial duration.
Malisa Vucinic suggested additional text on DUT design cautions in
the Security Considerations section.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[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>.
[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 [RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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, A., "ETSI GS NFV-TST 009 V3.4.1 (2020-12),
"Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3;
Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and
Measurement Methods for NFVI"", December 2020,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-
TST/001_099/009/03.04.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030401p.pdf>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch] [I-D.vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch]
Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Probabilistic Loss Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Probabilistic Loss
Ratio Search for Packet Throughput (PLRsearch)", draft- Ratio Search for Packet Throughput (PLRsearch)", draft-
vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-03 (work in progress), March 2020. vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-03 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch] [I-D.vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch]
Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Multiple Loss Ratio Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Multiple Loss Ratio
Search for Packet Throughput (MLRsearch)", draft-vpolak- Search for Packet Throughput (MLRsearch)", draft-vpolak-
mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03 (work in progress), March 2020. mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03 (work in progress), March 2020.
[OPNFV-2017] [OPNFV-2017]
Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane
Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June
2017, 2017,
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/10293193/ <https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/10293193/
VSPERF-Dataplane-Perf-Cap-Bench.pptx?api=v2>. VSPERF-Dataplane-Perf-Cap-Bench.pptx?api=v2>.
[RFC8239] Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking [RFC1944] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017, Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 1944,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8239>. DOI 10.17487/RFC1944, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1944>.
[TST009] Morton, R. A., "ETSI GS NFV-TST 009 V3.2.1 (2019-06), [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
"Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3; Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
Measurement Methods for NFVI"", June 2019, 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-
TST/001_099/009/03.01.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030101p.pdf>. [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>.
[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>.
[VSPERF-b2b] [VSPERF-b2b]
Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)", Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)",
June 2017, <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/ June 2017, <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
Traffic+Generator+Testing#TrafficGeneratorTesting- Traffic+Generator+Testing#TrafficGeneratorTesting-
AppendixB:Back2BackTestingTimeSeries(fromCI)>. AppendixB:Back2BackTestingTimeSeries(fromCI)>.
[VSPERF-BSLV] [VSPERF-BSLV]
Morton, A. and S. Rao, "Evolution of Repeatability in Morton, A. and S. Rao, "Evolution of Repeatability in
Benchmarking: Fraser Plugfest (Summary for IETF BMWG)", Benchmarking: Fraser Plugfest (Summary for IETF BMWG)",
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
86 lines changed or deleted 117 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/