draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-00.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01.txt 
Network Working Group M. Georgescu Benchmarking Working Group M. Georgescu
Internet Draft NAIST Internet Draft NAIST
Intended status: Informational G. Lencse Intended status: Informational G. Lencse
Expires: April 2016 Szechenyi Istvan University Expires: September 2016 Szechenyi Istvan University
October 15, 2015 March 17, 2016
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-00.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of
network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the
IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This
document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the
performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically, performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically,
this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ
encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 17, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. respect to this document.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................4 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................4
2. Conventions used in this document..............................5 2. Conventions used in this document..............................5
3. Test Setup.....................................................5 3. Terminology....................................................6
3.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................6 4. Test Setup.....................................................6
3.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..6 4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................7
4. Test Traffic...................................................7 4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..7
4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................7 5. Test Traffic...................................................8
4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................8 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................8
4.2. Protocol Addresses........................................8 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................9
4.3. Traffic Setup.............................................8 5.2. Protocol Addresses........................................9
5. Modifiers......................................................9 5.3. Traffic Setup.............................................9
6. Benchmarking Tests.............................................9 6. Modifiers.....................................................10
6.1. Throughput................................................9 7. Benchmarking Tests............................................10
6.2. Latency...................................................9 7.1. Throughput - [RFC2544]...................................10
6.3. Packet Delay Variation....................................9 7.2. Latency..................................................10
6.3.1. PDV..................................................9 7.3. Packet Delay Variation...................................11
6.3.2. IPDV................................................10 7.3.1. PDV.................................................11
6.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................11 7.3.2. IPDV................................................12
6.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................11 7.4. Frame Loss Rate - [RFC2544]..............................13
6.6. System Recovery..........................................12 7.5. Back-to-back Frames - [RFC2544]..........................13
6.7. Reset....................................................12 7.6. System Recovery - [RFC2544]..............................13
7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition 7.7. Reset - [RFC2544]........................................13
Technologies.....................................................12
7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................12 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................12 Technologies.....................................................13
8. DNS Resolution Performance....................................13 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity -[RFC3511]............13
8.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................13 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate -[RFC3511].....13
8.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................14 9. DNS Resolution Performance....................................13
9. Scalability...................................................15 9.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................14
9.1. Test Setup...............................................16 9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................15
9.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies..........16 9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester.........................16
9.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition 10. Scalability..................................................17
Technologies...............................................16 10.1. Test Setup..............................................17
9.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation.....................17 10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies.........17
10. Summarizing function and repeatability.......................18 10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition
11. Security Considerations......................................18 Technologies...............................................18
12. IANA Considerations..........................................19 10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation....................18
13. Conclusions..................................................19 10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load
14. References...................................................19 ...........................................................18
14.1. Normative References....................................19 10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load
14.2. Informative References..................................20 ...........................................................19
15. Acknowledgements.............................................20 11. Summarizing function and variation...........................20
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................21 12. Security Considerations......................................20
13. IANA Considerations..........................................20
14. References...................................................21
14.1. Normative References....................................21
14.2. Informative References..................................21
15. Acknowledgements.............................................23
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors
and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and
IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544] IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544]
is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains
complementary recommendations, which are specific to the latest IP complementary recommendations, which are specific to the latest IP
version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition
technologies. technologies.
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 4, line 15
The document also includes an approach to quantify load scalability. The document also includes an approach to quantify load scalability.
Load scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully Load scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully
accommodate higher loads. Because poor scalability usually leads to accommodate higher loads. Because poor scalability usually leads to
poor performance, the proposed approach is to quantify the load poor performance, the proposed approach is to quantify the load
scalability by measuring the performance degradation created by a scalability by measuring the performance degradation created by a
higher number of network flows. higher number of network flows.
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies
Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known
as dual stack) and encapsulation, are presented in [RFC4213]. as dual stack) and encapsulation are presented in [RFC4213].
IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the
transition technologies employ at least one variation of these transition technologies employ at least one variation of these
mechanisms. Some of the more complex ones (e.g. DSLite [RFC6333]) mechanisms. Some of the more complex ones (e.g. DSLite [RFC6333])
are using all three. In this context, a generic classification of are using all three. In this context, a generic classification of
the transition technologies can prove useful. the transition technologies can prove useful.
Tentatively, we can consider a production network transitioning to Tentatively, we can consider a production network transitioning to
IPv6 as being constructed using the following IP domains: IPv6 as being constructed using the following IP domains:
o Domain A: IPvX specific domain o Domain A: IPvX specific domain
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
(e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between (e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between
IP addresses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port IP addresses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port
number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of
reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful
mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition
technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed
can be an important performance indicator for these technologies. can be an important performance indicator for these technologies.
Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional
benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED. benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED.
Table 1 contains the generic categories as well as associations with
some of the IPv6 transition technologies proposed in the IETF.
Table 1. IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
o +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
o | | Generic category | IPv6 Transition Technology |
o +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
o | 1 | Dual-stack | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] |
o +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
o | 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146], IVI [RFC6219] |
o +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
o | 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] |
o +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
o | 4 | Encapsulation | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597] |
o | | | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596] |
o | | | 6RD [RFC 5569] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.
Although these terms are usually associated with protocol Although these terms are usually associated with protocol
requirements, in this doc the terms are requirements for users and requirements, in this doc the terms are requirements for users and
systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim
conformance with this specification. conformance with this specification.
3. Test Setup 3. Terminology
A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs.
Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and
reporting formats.
Throughput (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201]
Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]
Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]
4. Test Setup
The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition
technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in
Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options
presented in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well. presented in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well.
However, the Device under test (DUT) setup options should be However, the Device under test (DUT) setup options should be
explained in the context of the targeted categories of IPv6 explained in the context of the targeted categories of IPv6
transition technologies: Single translation, Double translation and transition technologies: Single translation, Double translation and
Encapsulation transition technologies. Encapsulation transition technologies.
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 14
benchmarking result. To that end, the procedures defined in benchmarking result. To that end, the procedures defined in
[RFC2544] (Sections 11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management [RFC2544] (Sections 11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management
frames SHOULD be used here as well. Moreover, the "Trial frames SHOULD be used here as well. Moreover, the "Trial
description" recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are description" recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are
valid for this memo as well. valid for this memo as well.
In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13 In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
are valid for this document as well assuming that an IPv6 version of are valid for this document as well assuming that an IPv6 version of
the routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used. the routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used.
3.1. Single translation Transition Technologies 4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies
For the evaluation of Single translation transition technologies a For the evaluation of Single translation transition technologies, a
single DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is single DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is
responsible for translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In responsible for translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In
this context, the tester device should be configured to support both this context, the tester device should be configured to support both
IPvX and IPvY. IPvX and IPvY.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| | | |
+------------|IPvX tester IPvY|<-------------+ +------------|IPvX tester IPvY|<-------------+
| | | | | | | |
| +--------------------+ | | +--------------------+ |
| | | |
| +--------------------+ | | +--------------------+ |
| | | | | | | |
+----------->|IPvX DUT IPvY|--------------+ +----------->|IPvX DUT IPvY|--------------+
| | | |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 1. Test setup 1 Figure 1. Test setup 1
3.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies 4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies
For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double
translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2) translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2)
SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX
packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or
translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are
decapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT and decapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT and
forwarded to the tester. forwarded to the tester.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
skipping to change at page 7, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to
reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this, reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this,
additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single
DUT setup. DUT setup.
Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single
DUT setup, in order to test the decapsulation efficiency, the tester DUT setup, in order to test the decapsulation efficiency, the tester
SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY. SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY.
4. Test Traffic 5. Test Traffic
The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD
meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements
are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside
of the scope of this document. of the scope of this document.
4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes
[RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly [RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly
used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network). used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network).
[RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and [RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and
FDDI. The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack FDDI. The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack
transition technologies. For the rest of the transition technologies transition technologies. For the rest of the transition technologies
the frame overhead introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST the frame overhead introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST
be considered. be considered.
The encapsulation/translation process generates different size The encapsulation/translation process generates different size
skipping to change at page 8, line 20 skipping to change at page 9, line 19
needed in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the needed in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the
virtual encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical virtual encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical
network interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the network interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the
larger MTU between the physical NICs and virtual larger MTU between the physical NICs and virtual
encapsulation/translation interfaces SHOULD be set for all encapsulation/translation interfaces SHOULD be set for all
interfaces of the DUT and tester. To be more specific, the minimum interfaces of the DUT and tester. To be more specific, the minimum
IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the encapsulation/translation IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the encapsulation/translation
overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the physical interfaces as overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the physical interfaces as
well as virtual ones. well as virtual ones.
4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet
Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes
SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links: SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links:
64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and
9216. 9216.
The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame
overhead are presented in Appendix A1. overhead are presented in Appendix A1.
4.2. Protocol Addresses 5.2. Protocol Addresses
The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of
[RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4. [RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4.
Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible
for the transition technologies which employ translation. Proposed for the transition technologies, which employ translation. Proposed
IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation
[RFC6145] do not support the use of extension headers. [RFC6145] do not support the use of extension headers.
4.3. Traffic Setup 5.3. Traffic Setup
Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional
traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance
assessment. assessment.
Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more
reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols. reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols.
Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 6 of Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 6 of
this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed. this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.
Considering that the stateful transition technologies need to manage Considering that the stateful transition technologies need to manage
the state table for each connection, a connection-oriented transport the state table for each connection, a connection-oriented transport
layer protocol needs to be used with the test traffic. Consequently, layer protocol needs to be used with the test traffic. Consequently,
TCP test traffic SHOULD be employed for the tests described in TCP test traffic SHOULD be employed for the tests described in
Section 7 of this document. Section 7 of this document.
5. Modifiers 6. Modifiers
The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important
aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some
extent the conditions of a production environment. [RFC5180] extent the conditions of a production environment. [RFC5180]
describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their
recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies
testing as well. testing as well.
6. Benchmarking Tests 7. Benchmarking Tests
The following sub-sections contain the list of all recommended The following sub-sections contain the list of all recommended
benchmarking tests. benchmarking tests.
6.1. Throughput 7.1. Throughput - [RFC2544]
Objective: To determine the DUT throughput as defined in [RFC1242]. 7.2. Latency
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544]. Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the
definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a
new measurement procedure.
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544]. Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of
the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. Send a stream of frames
at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 120 seconds in duration.
6.2. Latency Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60
seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which was fully
transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was
received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B
minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242,
namely latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency
as defined for bit forwarding devices.
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in [RFC1242]. From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, 2 quantities SHOULD be
calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated
with the following formula:
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544]. TL=Median(Li)
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544]. Where: TL - the reported typical latency of the stream
Li -the latency for tagged frame i
6.3. Packet Delay Variation The other measure is the worst case latency, which SHOULD be
calculated with the following formula:
WCL=L99.9thPercentile
Where: WCL - The reported worst case latency
th L99.9thPercentile - The 99.9 Percentile of the stream measured
latencies
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
value being the median of the recorded values.
Reporting Format: The report MUST state which definition of latency
(from RFC 1242) was used for this test. The summarized latency
results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for
each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the
frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that
frame size, for the media types tested, and for the resultant
typical latency and worst case latency values for each type of data st th stream tested. To account for the variation, the 1 and 99
percentiles of the 20 iterations MAY be reported in two separated
columns.
7.3. Packet Delay Variation
Considering two of the metrics presented in [RFC5481], Packet Delay Considering two of the metrics presented in [RFC5481], Packet Delay
Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV), it is Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV), it is
RECOMMENDED to measure PDV. For a fine grain analysis of delay RECOMMENDED to measure PDV. For a fine grain analysis of delay
variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed as well. variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed as well.
6.3.1. PDV 7.3.1. PDV
Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in
[RFC5481]. [RFC5481].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the
skipping to change at page 10, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the
stream using the formula: stream using the formula:
PDV=D99.9thPercentile - Dmin PDV=D99.9thPercentile - Dmin
Where: D99.9thPercentile - the 99.9th Percentile (as it was Where: D99.9thPercentile - the 99.9th Percentile (as it was
described in [RFC5481]) of the One-way delay for the stream described in [RFC5481]) of the One-way delay for the stream
Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream
As recommended in [RFC 2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20 As recommended in [RFC 2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20
times with the reported value being the average of the recorded times with the reported value being the median of the recorded st th values. Moreover, the 1 and 99 percentiles SHOULD be calculated to
values. Moreover, the margin of error from the average MAY be account for the variation of the dataset.
evaluated following the formula:
StDev
MoE= alpha * ----------
sqrt(N)
Where: alpha - critical value; the recommended value is 2.576 for
a 99% level of confidence
StDev - standard deviation
N - number of test iterations
Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with
a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame
size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. A column size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. Two th columns for the 1st and 99 percentile values MAY as well be
for the margin of error values MAY as well be displayed. Following displayed. Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the
the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of RECOMMENDED units of measurement are milliseconds.
measurement are milliseconds.
6.3.2. IPDV 7.3.2. IPDV
Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined
in [RFC5481]. in [RFC5481].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for
each of the frames using the formula: each of the frames using the formula:
IPDV(i)=D(i) - D(i-1) IPDV(i)=D(i) - D(i-1)
Where: D(i) - the One-way delay of the i th frame in the stream Where: D(i) - the One-way delay of the i th frame in the stream
D(i-1) - the One-way delay of i-1 th frame in the stream D(i-1) - the One-way delay of i-1 th frame in the stream
Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to
over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement
SHOULD include 3 values: Dmin, Davg, and Dmax SHOULD include 3 values: Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax
Where: Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream Where: Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream
Davg - the average One-way delay of the stream Dmed - the median One-way delay of the stream
Dmax - the maximum One-way delay in the stream Dmax - the maximum One-way delay in the stream
As recommended in RFC 2544, the test MUST be repeated at least 20 As recommended in [RFC 2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20
times. times. To summarize the 20 repetitions, for each of the 3 (Dmin,
Dmed and Dmax) the median value SHOULD be reported.
Reporting format: The average of the 3 proposed values SHOULD be Reporting format: The median for the 3 proposed values SHOULD be
reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the
frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and
sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. A column for the sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. Following the
margin of error values MAY as well be displayed. Following the
recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement
are milliseconds. are milliseconds.
6.4. Frame Loss Rate 7.4. Frame Loss Rate - [RFC2544]
Objective: To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in
[RFC1242], of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates
and frame sizes.
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.5. Back-to-back Frames
Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
back frames as defined in [RFC1242].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.6. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition.
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.7. Reset
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a 7.5. Back-to-back Frames - [RFC2544]
device or software reset.
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544]. 7.6. System Recovery - [RFC2544]
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC6201]. 7.7. Reset - [RFC2544]
7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
Technologies Technologies
This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful
IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this
section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test
parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 4, 5). parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 4, 5).
In addition to the IPv4/IPv6 transition function a network node can In addition to the IPv4/IPv6 transition function a network node can
have a firewall function. This document is targeting only the have a firewall function. This document is targeting only the
network devices that do not have a firewall function, as this network devices that do not have a firewall function, as this
function can be benchmarked using the recommendations of [RFC3511]. function can be benchmarked using the recommendations of [RFC3511].
Consequently, only the tests described in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2, Consequently, only the tests described in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2,
5.3) are RECOMMENDED. Namely, the following additional tests SHOULD 5.3) are RECOMMENDED. Namely, the following additional tests SHOULD
be performed: be performed:
7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity -[RFC3511]
Objective: To determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP
connections supported through or with the DUT, as defined in [RFC
2647]. This test is supposed to find the maximum number of entries
the DUT can store in its state table.
Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].
7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate
Objective: To determine the maximum TCP connection establishment
rate through or with the DUT, as defined by RFC [2647]. This test
is expected to find the maximum rate at which the DUT can update its
connection table.
Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511]. 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate -[RFC3511]
8. DNS Resolution Performance 9. DNS Resolution Performance
This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see
[RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single translation technologies [RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single translation technologies
such as NAT64. such as NAT64.
8.1. Test and Traffic Setup 9.1. Test and Traffic Setup
The test setup follows the setup proposed for single translation The test setup follows the setup proposed for single translation
IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1. IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1.
1:AAAA query +--------------------+ 1:AAAA query +--------------------+
+------------| |<-------------+ +------------| |<-------------+
| |IPv6 tester IPv4| | | |IPv6 Tester IPv4| |
| +-------->| |----------+ | | +-------->| |----------+ |
| | +--------------------+ 3:empty | | | | +--------------------+ 3:empty | |
| | 6:synt'd AAAA, | | | | 6:synt'd AAAA, | |
| | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| | | | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| |
| +---------| |<---------+ | | +---------| |<---------+ |
| |IPv6 DUT IPv4| | | |IPv6 DUT IPv4| |
+----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+ +----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+
+--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query +--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query
The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps. The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps.
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 38
server to authoritative DNS server) server to authoritative DNS server)
3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
server) server)
4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server 4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server
to authoritative DNS server) to authoritative DNS server)
5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
server) server)
6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client) 6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)
The tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS
server. server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or
alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used.
Please note that: Please note that:
- If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit - If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit
then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are
omitted). omitted).
- If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in - If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in
step 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are step 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are
omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA
record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client. record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client.
- As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6 - As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6
MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a
DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but
either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and
the authoritative DNS server. the authoritative DNS server.
skipping to change at page 14, line 24 skipping to change at page 15, line 15
- If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in - If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in
step 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are step 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are
omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA
record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client. record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client.
- As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6 - As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6
MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a
DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but
either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and
the authoritative DNS server. the authoritative DNS server.
8.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance 9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance
Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the number of Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the number of
successfully processed DNS requests per second. successfully processed DNS requests per second.
Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate
to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a
predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding
query, having the default value 1 second) from the DUT. If the count query, having the default value 1 second) from the DUT. If the count
of sent queries is equal to the count of received replies, the rate of sent queries is equal to the count of received replies, the rate
of the queries is raised and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are of the queries is raised and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are
received than queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced received than queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced
and the test is rerun. and the test is rerun. The duration of the test SHOULD be at least
60 seconds to reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is
able to exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus
utilizing also the timeout time for answering them. For the same
reason, no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used.
The number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest rate The number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest rate
at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to the at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to the
number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment. number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment.
The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times and the average and The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times and the median and 1st th and 99 percentiles of the number of processed DNS queries per
margin of error (as described by Section 6.3.1) of the number of second SHOULD be calculated.
processed DNS queries per second SHOULD be calculated.
Details and parameters: Details and parameters:
1. Caching 1. Caching
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or
domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is
exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.
domain names which are repeated (early enough to be still in the domain names which are repeated (early enough to be still in the
cache). cache).
2. Existence of AAAA record 2. Existence of AAAA record
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not
have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record. have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record.
Then new tests MAY be executed with 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. domain names Then new tests MAY be executed with 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. domain names
which have an AAAA record. which have an AAAA record.
Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all
their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with
0% repeated DNS names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED 0% repeated DNS names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED
and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. and the other combinations are OPTIONAL.
Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64/DNS46 test is the Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64/DNS46 test is the
average of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured average of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured
skipping to change at page 15, line 22 skipping to change at page 16, line 16
which have an AAAA record. which have an AAAA record.
Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all
their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with
0% repeated DNS names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED 0% repeated DNS names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED
and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. and the other combinations are OPTIONAL.
Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64/DNS46 test is the Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64/DNS46 test is the
average of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured average of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured
with the above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The average SHOULD with the above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The average SHOULD
be complemented with the margin of error to show the stability of be complemented with the margin of error to show the stability of st the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1 and th 99 percentiles MAY be presented in a two dimensional table where
the result. If optional tests are done, the average and margin of the dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names and
error pairs MAY be presented in a two dimensional table where the the proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two table
dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names and the
proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two table
headings SHOULD contain these percentage values. Alternatively, the headings SHOULD contain these percentage values. Alternatively, the
results MAY be presented as the corresponding two dimensional graph, results MAY be presented as the corresponding two dimensional graph,
too. In this case the graph SHOULD show the average values with the too. In this case the graph SHOULD show the median values with the
margin of error as error bars. From both the table and the graph, percentiles as error bars. From both the table and the graph, one
one dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any given fixed percentage dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any given fixed percentage value
value of the other dimension. In this case, the fixed value MUST be of the other dimension. In this case, the fixed value MUST be given
given together with a one dimensional table or graph. together with a one dimensional table or graph.
9. Scalability 9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester
Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per
second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order
to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester
itself influences the results. For performing a self-test, the
tester is looped back (leaving out DUT) and its authoritative DNS
server subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA
record queries. For passing the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able
to answer AAAA record queries at 2*(r+delta) rate within 0.25*t
timeout, where the value of delta is at least 0.1.
Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query
may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT, the first one of
them is for an AAAA record and the second one is for an A record
(the are both sent when there is no cache hit and also no AAAA
record exists). The parameters above guarantee that the
authoritative DNS server subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the
queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of
the timeout time.
Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++ is available
from [Dns64perf]. It implements only the client part of the Tester
and it should be used together with an authoritative DNS server
implementation, e.g. BIND, NSD or YADIFA.
10. Scalability
Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
yet been approached. yet been proposed.
Scalability can be defined as the ability of each transition In this context, scalability can be defined as the ability of each
technology to accommodate network growth. transition technology to accommodate network growth.
Poor scalability usually leads to poor performance. Considering Poor scalability usually leads to poor performance. Considering
this, scalability can be measured by quantifying the network this, scalability can be measured by quantifying the network
performance degradation while the network grows. performance degradation while the network grows.
The following subsections describe how the test setups can be The following subsections describe how the test setups can be
modified to create network growth and how the associated performance modified to create network growth and how the associated performance
degradation can be quantified. degradation can be quantified.
9.1. Test Setup 10.1. Test Setup
The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create
network growth. network growth.
9.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies 10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies
In the case of single translation transition technologies the In the case of single translation transition technologies the
network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network
flows generated by the tester machine (see Figure 3). flows generated by the tester machine (see Figure 3).
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
+------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+ +------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+
| +---------|NF2 tester NF2|<----------+ | | +---------|NF2 tester NF2|<----------+ |
| | ...| | | | | | ...| | | |
| | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | | | | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | | | | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | |
| | ...| DUT | | | | | ...| DUT | | |
| +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ | | +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ |
+----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+ +----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 3. Test setup 3 Figure 3. Test setup 3
9.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition Technologies 10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition Technologies
Similarly, for the encapsulation/double translation technologies a Similarly, for the encapsulation/double translation technologies a
multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point
scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is
designed to support more than one connecting devices. Hence, the designed to support more than one connecting devices. Hence, the
recommended test setup is a n:1 design, where n is the number of recommended test setup is a n:1 design, where n is the number of
"client" DUTs connected to the same "server" DUT (See Figure 4). client DUTs connected to the same server DUT (See Figure 4).
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
+--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+ +--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+
| +-----------------|NF2 tester NF2|<-----------+ | | +-----------------|NF2 tester NF2|<-----------+ |
| | ...| | | | | | ...| | | |
| | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | | | | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | | | | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | |
| | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | | | | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | |
| | +-----------------+ | | | | | | +-----------------+ | | | |
| | ... | | | | | | ... | | | |
| | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | | | | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | |
| +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ | | +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ |
| +-----------------+ | | | | +-----------------+ | | |
| +-----------------+ | | | | +-----------------+ | | |
+---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+ +---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+
+-----------------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+
Figure 4. Test setup 4 Figure 4. Test setup 4
This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the "server" This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server
device. However, for testing the scalability of the "client" DUTs device. However, for testing the scalability of the client DUTs
additional recommendations are needed. additional recommendations are needed.
For encapsulation transition technologies a m:n setup can be For encapsulation transition technologies a m:n setup can be
created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same "client" created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client
device and n the number of "client" devices connected to the same device and n the number of client devices connected to the same
"server" device. server device.
For the translation based transition technologies the "client" For the translation based transition technologies the client devices
devices can be separately tested with n network flows using the test can be separately tested with n network flows using the test setup
setup presented in Figure 3. presented in Figure 3.
9.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation 10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation
10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel network flows. parallel and simultaneous network flows.
Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have
to be performed for one network flow. to be performed for one network flow.
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows. The The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be network flows are started simultaneously. The performance
calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as
and the n-flow results, using the following formula: relative performance change between the 1-flow results and the n-
flow results, using the following formula:
Xn - X1 Xn - X1
Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow
X1 Xn - result for n-flows X1 Xn - result for n-flows
Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
SHOULD also state the applied frame rate. SHOULD also state the applied frame rate.
10. Summarizing function and repeatability 10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel and incrementally started network flows.
Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have
to be performed for one network flow.
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after
time T. In other words, if flow I is started at time x, flow i+1
will be started at time x+T. Considering the time T, the time
duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary
to start all the flows, namely (n-1)xT.
The performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD
be calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow
results and the n-flow results, using the following formula
presented in Section 9.2.1.
Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
SHOULD also state the applied frame rate and time duration T, used
as increment step between the network flows. The units of
measurement for T SHOULD be seconds.
11. Summarizing function and variation
To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using
the tests presented in Sections 6-9, multiple test iterations are the tests presented in Sections 6-9, multiple test iterations are
recommended. Following the recommendations of RFC2544, the average recommended. Using a summarizing function (or measure of central
was chosen to be the summarizing function for the reported values. tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare the results
While median can be an alternative summarizing function, a rationale obtained across different iterations. However, over-summarization is
for using one or the other is needed. an unwanted effect of reporting a single number.
The median can be useful for summarizing especially when outliers
are not a desired quantity. However, in the overall performance of a
network device the outliers can represent a malfunction or
misconfiguration in the DUT, which should be taken into account.
The average is a more inclusive summarizing function. Moreover, as Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter
underlined in [DeNijs], the average is less exposed to statistical the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the
uncertainty. These reasons make it the RECOMMENDED summarizing proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing
function for the results of different test iterations, unless stated function would fit better.
otherwise.
To express the repeatability of the benchmarking tests through a To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as st th suitable summarizing function and the 1 and 99 percentiles as
number, the Margin of error (MoE) can be used. Of course, other variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV.
functions, such as standard error could be employed as well. The
advantage the MoE has is expressing an associated confidence
interval by using the alpha parameter.
The recommended formula for calculating the MoE is presented in For a fine grain analysis of the frequency distribution of the data,
Section 6.3.1. histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be
employed.
11. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
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 constraints environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above. specified in the sections above.
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. management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special
capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks. networks.
12. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6 The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6
benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was
reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient
for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies.
13. Conclusions
The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be used
for benchmarking the performance of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-
stack supporting network devices. This document presents
complementary recommendations dedicated to IPv6 transition
technologies. Furthermore, the methodology includes a tentative
approach for benchmarking load scalability by quantifying the
performance degradation associated with network growth.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", [RFC1242], July 1991. Interconnection Devices", [RFC1242], July 1991.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for [RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", [RFC2544], March 1999. Network Interconnect Devices", [RFC2544], March 1999.
[RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall [RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
Devices", [RFC2647], August 1999. Devices", [RFC2647], August 1999.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002. November 2002.
skipping to change at page 20, line 17 skipping to change at page 21, line 41
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008. Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.
[RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation [RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009. Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera, [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, March 2011. "Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, March 2011.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
2005.
[RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569,
January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011. IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, DOI
10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6219>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6333] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC
6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890, "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890,
April 2013. April 2013.
[DeNijs] De Nijs, R., and Thomas Levin Klausen. "On the expected [RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and
difference between mean and median." Electronic Journal of I. Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Applied Statistical Analysis 6.1 (2013): 110-117. Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597, DOI
10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[Dns64perf] Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester",
available: https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp
[ietf95pres] Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6
Transition Technologies", IETF 95, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, April 3-8, 2016, available: [to appear]
15. Acknowledgements 15. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Youki Kadobayashi for his The authors would like to thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki
constant feedback and support. The thanks should be extended to the Hazeyama for their constant feedback and support. The thanks should
NECOMA project members for their continuous support. We would also be extended to the NECOMA project members for their continuous
like to thank Scott Bradner, Al Morton and Fred Baker for their support. We would also like to thank Scott Bradner for the useful
detailed review of the draft and very helpful suggestions. Other suggestions. We also note that portions of text from Scott's
helpful comments and suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran documents were used in this memo (e.g. Latency section). A big thank
Vengainathan, Andrew McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, you to Al Morton and Fred Baker for their detailed review of the
Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka Mawatari,Kostas Pentikousis and Bela draft and very helpful suggestions. Other helpful comments and
Almasi. A special thank you to the RFC Editor Team for their suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew
thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions. This document was McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka
prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Mawatari, Kostas Pentikousis and Bela Almasi. A special thank you to
the RFC Editor Team for their thorough editorial review and helpful
suggestions. This document was prepared using 2-Word-
v2.0.template.dot.
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates
This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the
theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as
example media. The formula takes into account the frame size example media. The formula takes into account the frame size
overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process. overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process.
For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20 For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20
bytes of overhead to each frame. bytes of overhead to each frame.
 End of changes. 85 change blocks. 
248 lines changed or deleted 354 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/