draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02.txt 
Network Working Group B. Constantine Network Working Group B. Constantine
Internet Draft JDSU Internet Draft JDSU
Intended status: Informational T. Copley Intended status: Informational R. Krishnan
Expires: May 2015 Level-3 Expires: July 2015 Brocade Communications
November 12, 2014 R. Krishnan January 26, 2015
Brocade Communications
Traffic Management Benchmarking Traffic Management Benchmarking
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 12, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
1. Introduction...................................................4 1. Introduction...................................................4
1.1. Traffic Management Overview...............................4 1.1. Traffic Management Overview...............................4
1.2. DUT Lab Configuration and Testing Overview................5 1.2. DUT Lab Configuration and Testing Overview................5
2. Conventions used in this document..............................7 2. Conventions used in this document..............................7
3. Scope and Goals................................................8 3. Scope and Goals................................................8
4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics...................................9 4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics...................................9
4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests.......................9 4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests.......................9
4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests.......................11 4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests.......................11
5. Tester Capabilities...........................................11 5. Tester Capabilities...........................................11
5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation........................11 5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation........................11
5.1.1. Burst Hunt with Stateless Traffic...................11
5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation.........................12 5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation.........................12
5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions........................13 5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions........................13
6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology..............................15 6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology..............................14
6.1. Policing Tests...........................................15 6.1. Policing Tests...........................................15
6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests................................15 6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests................................15
6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests..............................16 6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests..............................16
6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port..........16 6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port..........17
6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports..............17 6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports..............18
6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports............17 6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports............19
6.2. Queue/Scheduler Tests....................................17 6.2. Queue/Scheduler Tests....................................20
6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests........................17 6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests........................20
6.2.1.1 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateless Traffic....17 6.2.1.1 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateless Traffic....21
6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic.....18 6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic.....21
6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests......................19 6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests......................23
6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active..............19 6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active..............23
6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port..................19 6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port..................24
6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ).....19 6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ).....24
6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active..........19 6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active..........25
6.2.2.3 Multiple Queues per Port, All Ports Active........20 6.2.2.3 Multiple Queues per Port, All Ports Active........25
6.3. Shaper tests.............................................20 6.3. Shaper tests.............................................26
6.3.1 Shaper Individual Tests...............................20 6.3.1 Shaper Individual Tests...............................26
6.3.1.1 Testing Shaper with Stateless Traffic.............20 6.3.1.1 Testing Shaper with Stateless Traffic.............27
6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic..............21 6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic..............28
6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests.................................22 6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests.................................30
6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active....22 6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active....30
6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active.............22 6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active.............30
6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active...............22 6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active...............31
6.4. Concurrent Capacity Load Tests...........................24 6.4. Concurrent Capacity Load Tests...........................32
7. Security Considerations.......................................24 Appendix A: Open Source Tools for Traffic Management Testing..32
8. IANA Considerations...........................................24 Appendix B: Stateful TCP Test Patterns........................33
9. Conclusions...................................................24 7. Security Considerations.......................................37
10. References...................................................24 8. IANA Considerations...........................................37
10.1. Normative References....................................25 9. Acknowledgments...............................................37
10.2. Informative References..................................25 10. References...................................................37
11. Acknowledgments..............................................25 10.1. Normative References....................................37
10.2. Informative References..................................38
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Traffic management (i.e. policing, shaping, etc.) is an increasingly Traffic management (i.e. policing, shaping, etc.) is an increasingly
important component when implementing network Quality of Service important component when implementing network Quality of Service
(QoS). (QoS).
There is currently no framework to benchmark these features There is currently no framework to benchmark these features
although some standards address specific areas which are described although some standards address specific areas which are described
in Section 1.1. in Section 1.1.
skipping to change at page 4, line 35 skipping to change at page 4, line 35
activation. In addition to Layer 2/3 (Ethernet / IP) benchmarking, activation. In addition to Layer 2/3 (Ethernet / IP) benchmarking,
Layer 4 (TCP) test patterns are proposed by this draft in order to Layer 4 (TCP) test patterns are proposed by this draft in order to
more realistically benchmark end-user traffic. more realistically benchmark end-user traffic.
1.1. Traffic Management Overview 1.1. Traffic Management Overview
In general, a device with traffic management capabilities performs In general, a device with traffic management capabilities performs
the following functions: the following functions:
- Traffic classification: identifies traffic according to various - Traffic classification: identifies traffic according to various
configuration rules for example IEEE 802.1Q Virtual LAN (VLAN), configuration rules (for example IEEE 802.1Q Virtual LAN (VLAN),
Differential Services Code Point (DSCP) etc. and marks this traffic Differential Services Code Point (DSCP) etc.) and marks this traffic
internally to the network device. Multiple external priorities internally to the network device. Multiple external priorities
(DSCP, 802.1p, etc.) can map to the same priority in the device. (DSCP, 802.1p, etc.) can map to the same priority in the device.
- Traffic policing: limits the rate of traffic that enters a network - Traffic policing: limits the rate of traffic that enters a network
device according to the traffic classification. If the traffic device according to the traffic classification. If the traffic
exceeds the provisioned limits, the traffic is either dropped or exceeds the provisioned limits, the traffic is either dropped or
remarked and forwarded onto to the next network device remarked and forwarded onto to the next network device
- Traffic Scheduling: provides traffic classification within the - Traffic Scheduling: provides traffic classification within the
network device by directing packets to various types of queues and network device by directing packets to various types of queues and
applies a dispatching algorithm to assign the forwarding sequence applies a dispatching algorithm to assign the forwarding sequence
of packets of packets
- Traffic shaping: a traffic control technique that actively buffers - Traffic shaping: a traffic control technique that actively buffers
and smooths the output rate in an attempt to adapt bursty traffic and smooths the output rate in an attempt to adapt bursty traffic
to the configured limits to the configured limits
- Active Queue Management (AQM): - Active Queue Management (AQM):
AQM involves monitoring the status of internal queues and proactively AQM involves monitoring the status of internal queues and
dropping (or remarking) packets, which causes hosts using proactively dropping (or remarking) packets, which causes hosts
congestion-aware protocols to back-off and in turn alleviate queue using congestion-aware protocols to back-off and in turn alleviate
congestion [AQM-RECO]. On the other hand, classic traffic management queue congestion [AQM-RECO]. On the other hand, classic traffic
techniques reactively drop (or remark) packets based on queue full management techniques reactively drop (or remark) packets based on
condition. The benchmarking scenarios for AQM are different and is queue full condition. The benchmarking scenarios for AQM are
outside of the scope of this testing framework. different and is outside of the scope of this testing framework.
The following diagram is a generic model of the traffic management The following diagram is a generic model of the traffic management
capabilities within a network device. It is not intended to capabilities within a network device. It is not intended to
represent all variations of manufacturer traffic management represent all variations of manufacturer traffic management
capabilities, but provide context to this test framework. capabilities, but provide context to this test framework.
|----------| |----------------| |--------------| |----------| |----------| |----------------| |--------------| |----------|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|Interface | |Ingress Actions | |Egress Actions| |Interface | |Interface | |Ingress Actions | |Egress Actions| |Interface |
|Input | |(classification,| |(scheduling, | |Output | |Input | |(classification,| |(scheduling, | |Output |
|Queues | | marking, | | shaping, | |Queues | |Queues | | marking, | | shaping, | |Queues |
| |-->| policing or |-->| active queue |-->| | | |-->| policing or |-->| active queue |-->| |
| | | shaping) | | management | | | | | | shaping) | | management | | |
| | | | | remarking) | | | | | | | | remarking) | | |
|----------| |----------------| |--------------| |----------| |----------| |----------------| |--------------| |----------|
Figure 1: Generic Traffic Management capabilities of a Network Device Figure 1: Generic Traffic Management capabilities of a Network Device
Ingress actions such as classification are defined in RFC 4689 [RFC4689] Ingress actions such as classification are defined in RFC 4689
and include IP addresses, port numbers, DSCP, etc. In terms of marking, [RFC4689] and include IP addresses, port numbers, DSCP, etc. In
RFC 2697 [RFC2697] and RFC 2698 [RFC2698] define a single rate and dual terms of marking, RFC 2697 [RFC2697] and RFC 2698 [RFC2698] define
rate, three color marker, respectively. a single rate and dual rate, three color marker, respectively.
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) specifies policing and shaping in terms The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) specifies policing and shaping in
of Ingress and Egress Subscriber/Provider Conditioning Functions in terms of Ingress and Egress Subscriber/Provider Conditioning
MEF12.1 [MEF-12.1]; Ingress and Bandwidth Profile attributes in MEF10.2 Functions in MEF12.1 [MEF-12.1]; Ingress and Bandwidth Profile
[MEF-10.2] and MEF 26 [MEF-26]. attributes in MEF10.2 [MEF-10.2] and MEF 26 [MEF-26].
1.2 Lab Configuration and Testing Overview 1.2 Lab Configuration and Testing Overview
The following is the description of the lab set-up for the traffic The following is the description of the lab set-up for the traffic
management tests: management tests:
+--------------+ +-------+ +----------+ +-----------+ +--------------+ +-------+ +----------+ +-----------+
| Transmitting | | | | | | Receiving | | Transmitting | | | | | | Receiving |
| Test Host | | | | | | Test Host | | Test Host | | | | | | Test Host |
| |-----| Device|---->| Network |--->| | | |-----| Device|---->| Network |--->| |
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
of its egress ports. The individual test would first be conducted to of its egress ports. The individual test would first be conducted to
benchmark the specified shaping function against the metrics defined benchmark the specified shaping function against the metrics defined
in section 4. Then the capacity test would be executed to test the in section 4. Then the capacity test would be executed to test the
shaping function concurrently on all interfaces and with maximum shaping function concurrently on all interfaces and with maximum
traffic load. traffic load.
The Network Delay Emulator (NDE) is required for TCP stateful tests The Network Delay Emulator (NDE) is required for TCP stateful tests
in order to allow TCP to utilize a significant size TCP window in its in order to allow TCP to utilize a significant size TCP window in its
control loop. control loop.
Also note that the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) should be passive in Also note that the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) SHOULD be passive in
nature such as a fiber spool. This is recommended to eliminate the nature such as a fiber spool. This is recommended to eliminate the
potential effects that an active delay element (i.e. test impairment potential effects that an active delay element (i.e. test impairment
generator) may have on the test flows. In the case where a fiber generator) may have on the test flows. In the case where a fiber
spool is not practical due to the desired latency, an active NDE must spool is not practical due to the desired latency, an active NDE MUST
be independently verified to be capable of adding the configured delay be independently verified to be capable of adding the configured
without loss. In other words, the DUT would be removed and the NDE delay without loss. In other words, the DUT would be removed and the
performance benchmarked independently. NDE performance benchmarked independently.
Note the NDE should be used in "full pipe" delay mode. Most NDEs Note the NDE SHOULD be used in "full pipe" delay mode. Most NDEs
allow for per flow delay actions, emulating QoS prioritization. For allow for per flow delay actions, emulating QoS prioritization. For
this framework, the NDE's sole purpose is simply to add delay to all this framework, the NDE's sole purpose is simply to add delay to all
packets (emulate network latency). So to benchmark the performance of packets (emulate network latency). So to benchmark the performance of
the NDE, maximum offered load should be tested against the following the NDE, maximum offered load should be tested against the following
frame sizes: 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1500,and 9600 bytes. The delay frame sizes: 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1500,and 9600 bytes. The delay
accuracy at each of these packet sizes can then be used to calibrate accuracy at each of these packet sizes can then be used to calibrate
the range of expected Bandwidth Delay Product (BDP) for the TCP stateful the range of expected Bandwidth Delay Product (BDP) for the TCP
tests. stateful tests.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The following acronyms are used: The following acronyms are used:
AQM: Active Queue Management AQM: Active Queue Management
skipping to change at page 8, line 23 skipping to change at page 8, line 23
limited to: limited to:
- Switches (including Layer 2/3 devices) - Switches (including Layer 2/3 devices)
- Routers - Routers
- Firewalls - Firewalls
- General Layer 4-7 appliances (Proxies, WAN Accelerators, etc.) - General Layer 4-7 appliances (Proxies, WAN Accelerators, etc.)
Essentially, any network device that performs traffic management as Essentially, any network device that performs traffic management as
defined in section 1.1 can be benchmarked or tested with this defined in section 1.1 can be benchmarked or tested with this
framework. framework.
The primary goal is to assess the maximum forwarding performance deemed The primary goal is to assess the maximum forwarding performance
to be within the provisioned traffic limits that a network device can deemed to be within the provisioned traffic limits that a network
sustain without dropping or impairing packets, or compromising the device can sustain without dropping or impairing packets, or
accuracy of multiple instances of traffic management functions. This compromising the accuracy of multiple instances of traffic
is the benchmark for comparison between devices. management functions. This is the benchmark for comparison between
devices.
Within this framework, the metrics are defined for each traffic Within this framework, the metrics are defined for each traffic
management test but do not include pass / fail criterion, which is management test but do not include pass / fail criterion, which is
not within the charter of BMWG. This framework provides the test not within the charter of BMWG. This framework provides the test
methods and metrics to conduct repeatable testing, which will methods and metrics to conduct repeatable testing, which will
provide the means to compare measured performance between DUTs. provide the means to compare measured performance between DUTs.
As mentioned in section 1.2, these methods describe the individual As mentioned in section 1.2, these methods describe the individual
tests and metrics for several management functions. It is also within tests and metrics for several management functions. It is also within
scope that this framework will benchmark each function in terms of scope that this framework will benchmark each function in terms of
overall rated capacity. This involves concurrent testing of multiple overall rated capacity. This involves concurrent testing of multiple
interfaces with the specific traffic management function enabled, up interfaces with the specific traffic management function enabled, up
to the capacity limit of each interface. to the capacity limit of each interface.
It is not within scope of this of this framework to specify the It is not within scope of this of this framework to specify the
procedure for testing multiple configurations of traffic management procedure for testing multiple configurations of traffic management
functions concurrently. The multitudes of possible combinations is functions concurrently. The multitudes of possible combinations is
almost unbounded and the ability to identify functional "break points" almost unbounded and the ability to identify functional "break
would be almost impossible. points" would be almost impossible.
However, section 6.4 provides suggestions for some profiles of However, section 6.4 provides suggestions for some profiles of
concurrent functions that would be useful to benchmark. The key concurrent functions that would be useful to benchmark. The key
requirement for any concurrent test function is that tests must requirement for any concurrent test function is that tests MUST
produce reliable and repeatable results. produce reliable and repeatable results.
Also, it is not within scope to perform conformance testing. Tests Also, it is not within scope to perform conformance testing. Tests
defined in this framework benchmark the traffic management functions defined in this framework benchmark the traffic management functions
according to the metrics defined in section 4 and do not address any according to the metrics defined in section 4 and do not address any
conformance to standards related to traffic management. The current conformance to standards related to traffic management. The current
specifications don't specify exact behavior or implementation and the specifications don't specify exact behavior or implementation and the
specifications that do exist (cited in section 1.1) allow specifications that do exist (cited in section 1.1) allow
implementations to vary w.r.t. short term rate accuracy and other implementations to vary w.r.t. short term rate accuracy and other
factors. This is a primary driver for this framework with the key factors. This is a primary driver for this framework: to provide
goal to provide an objective means to compare vendor traffic an objective means to compare vendor traffic management functions.
management functions.
Another goal is to devise methods that utilize flows with Another goal is to devise methods that utilize flows with
congestion-aware transport (TCP) as part of the traffic load and congestion-aware transport (TCP) as part of the traffic load and
still produce repeatable results in the isolated test environment. still produce repeatable results in the isolated test environment.
This framework will derive stateful test patterns (TCP or This framework will derive stateful test patterns (TCP or
application layer) that can also be used to further benchmark the application layer) that can also be used to further benchmark the
performance of applicable traffic management techniques such as performance of applicable traffic management techniques such as
queuing / scheduling and traffic shaping. In cases where the queuing / scheduling and traffic shaping. In cases where the
network device is stateful in nature (i.e. firewall, etc.), network device is stateful in nature (i.e. firewall, etc.),
stateful test pattern traffic is important to test along with stateful test pattern traffic is important to test along with
stateless, UDP traffic in specific test scenarios (i.e. stateless, UDP traffic in specific test scenarios (i.e.
applications using TCP transport and UDP VoIP, etc.) applications using TCP transport and UDP VoIP, etc.)
As mentioned earlier in the document, repeatability of test results As mentioned earlier in the document, repeatability of test results
is critical, especially considering the nature of stateful TCP traffic. is critical, especially considering the nature of stateful TCP
To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns to emulate traffic. To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns
applications. This framework also provides guidelines for application to emulate applications. This framework also provides guidelines
modeling and open source tools to achieve the repeatable stimulus. for application modeling and open source tools to achieve the
And finally, TCP metrics from RFC 6349 are specified to report for repeatable stimulus. And finally, TCP metrics from RFC 6349
each stateful test and provide the means to compare each repeated [RFC6349] MUST be measured for each stateful test and provide the
test. means to compare each repeated test.
4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics 4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics
The metrics to be measured during the benchmarks are divided into two The metrics to be measured during the benchmarks are divided into two
(2) sections: packet layer metrics used for the stateless traffic (2) sections: packet layer metrics used for the stateless traffic
testing and TCP layer metrics used for the stateful traffic testing and TCP layer metrics used for the stateful traffic
testing. testing.
4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests 4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
time-stamp be inserted into the payload for lost packet analysis. time-stamp be inserted into the payload for lost packet analysis.
Delay analysis may be achieved by insertion of timestamps directly Delay analysis may be achieved by insertion of timestamps directly
into the packets or timestamps stored elsewhere (packet captures). into the packets or timestamps stored elsewhere (packet captures).
This framework does not specify the packet format to carry sequence This framework does not specify the packet format to carry sequence
number or timing information. number or timing information.
However, RFC 4737 [RFC4737] and RFC 4689 provide recommendations However, RFC 4737 [RFC4737] and RFC 4689 provide recommendations
for sequence tracking along with definitions of in-sequence and for sequence tracking along with definitions of in-sequence and
out-of-order packets. out-of-order packets.
The following are the metrics to be used during the stateless traffic The following are the metrics that MUST be measured during the
benchmarking components of the tests: stateless traffic benchmarking components of the tests:
- Burst Size Achieved (BSA): for the traffic policing and network - Burst Size Achieved (BSA): for the traffic policing and network
queue tests, the tester will be configured to send bursts to test queue tests, the tester will be configured to send bursts to test
either the Committed Burst Size (CBS) or Excess Burst Size (EBS) of either the Committed Burst Size (CBS) or Excess Burst Size (EBS) of
a policer or the queue / buffer size configured in the DUT. The a policer or the queue / buffer size configured in the DUT. The
Burst Size Achieved metric is a measure of the actual burst size Burst Size Achieved metric is a measure of the actual burst size
received at the egress port of the DUT with no lost packets. As an received at the egress port of the DUT with no lost packets. As an
example, the configured CBS of a DUT is 64KB and after the burst test, example, the configured CBS of a DUT is 64KB and after the burst
only a 63 KB can be achieved without packet loss. Then 63KB is the test, only a 63 KB can be achieved without packet loss. Then 63KB is
BSA. Also, the average Packet Delay Variation (PDV see below) as the BSA. Also, the average Packet Delay Variation (PDV see below) as
experienced by the packets sent at the BSA burst size should be experienced by the packets sent at the BSA burst size should be
recorded. recorded. This metric shall be reported in units of bytes, KBytes,
or MBytes.
- Lost Packets (LP): For all traffic management tests, the tester will - Lost Packets(LP): For all traffic management tests, the tester will
transmit the test packets into the DUT ingress port and the number of transmit the test packets into the DUT ingress port and the number of
packets received at the egress port will be measured. The difference packets received at the egress port will be measured. The difference
between packets transmitted into the ingress port and received at the between packets transmitted into the ingress port and received at the
egress port is the number of lost packets as measured at the egress egress port is the number of lost packets as measured at the egress
port. These packets must have unique identifiers such that only the port. These packets must have unique identifiers such that only the
test packets are measured. For cases where multiple flows are test packets are measured. For cases where multiple flows are
transmitted from ingress to egress port (e.g. IP conversations), each transmitted from ingress to egress port (e.g. IP conversations), each
flow must have sequence numbers within the test packets stream. flow must have sequence numbers within the test packets stream.
RFC 4737 and RFC 2680 [RFC2680] describe the need to to establish the RFC 4737 and RFC 2680 [RFC2680] describe the need to establish the
time threshold to wait before a packet is declared as lost. packet as time threshold to wait before a packet is declared as lost, and this
lost, and this threshold MUST be reported with the results. threshold MUST be reported with the results. This metric shall be
reported as an integer number which cannot be negative.
- Out of Sequence (OOS): in additions to the LP metric, the test - Out of Sequence (OOS): in additions to the LP metric, the test
packets must be monitored for sequence and the out-of-sequence (OOS) packets must be monitored for sequence and the out-of-sequence (OOS)
packets. RFC 4689 defines the general function of sequence tracking, as packets. RFC 4689 defines the general function of sequence tracking,
well as definitions for in-sequence and out-of-order packets. Out-of- as well as definitions for in-sequence and out-of-order packets.
order packets will be counted per RFC 4737 and RFC 2680. Out-of-order packets will be counted per RFC 4737 and RFC 2680
[RFC2680]. This metric shall be reported as an integer number which
cannot be negative.
- Packet Delay (PD): the Packet Delay metric is the difference between - Packet Delay (PD): the Packet Delay metric is the difference
the timestamp of the received egress port packets and the packets between the timestamp of the received egress port packets and the
transmitted into the ingress port and specified in RFC 2285. The packets transmitted into the ingress port and specified in RFC 1242
transmitting host and receiving host time must be in time sync using [RFC1242]. The transmitting host and receiving host time must be in
NTP , GPS, etc. time sync using NTP , GPS, etc. This metric shall be reported as an
real number of seconds which cannot be negative, which usually
indicates a time synchronization problem.
- Packet Delay Variation (PDV): the Packet Delay Variation metric is - Packet Delay Variation (PDV): the Packet Delay Variation metric is
the variation between the timestamp of the received egress port the variation between the timestamp of the received egress port
packets and specified in RFC 5481. Note that per RFC 5481, this PDV packets and specified in RFC 5481 [RFC5481]. Note that per RFC 5481,
is the variation of one-way delay across many packets in the traffic this PDV is the variation of one-way delay across many packets in
flow. the traffic flow. Per the measurement formulat in RFC 5481, select
the high percentile of 99% and units of measure will be a real
number of seconds (negative is not possible for PDV and would
indicate a measurement error).
- Shaper Rate (SR): the Shaper Rate is only applicable to the - Shaper Rate (SR): the Shaper Rate is only applicable to the
traffic shaping tests. The SR represents the average egress output traffic shaping tests. The SR represents the average egress output
rate (bps) over the test interval. rate (bps) over the test interval.
- Shaper Burst Bytes (SBB): the Shaper Burst Bytes is only applicable - Shaper Burst Bytes (SBB): the Shaper Burst Bytes is only applicable
to the traffic shaping tests. A traffic shaper will emit packets in to the traffic shaping tests. A traffic shaper will emit packets in
different size "trains" (bytes back-to-back). This metric different size "trains" (bytes back-to-back). This metric
characterizes the method by which the shaper emits traffic. Some characterizes the method by which the shaper emits traffic. Some
shapers transmit larger bursts per interval, and a burst of 1 packet shapers transmit larger bursts per interval, and a burst of 1 packet
would apply to the extreme case of a shaper sending a CBR stream of would apply to the extreme case of a shaper sending a CBR stream of
single packets. single packets. This metric shall be reported in units of bytes,
KBytes, or MBytes.
- Shaper Burst Interval(SBI): the interval is only applicable to the - Shaper Burst Interval(SBI): the interval is only applicable to the
traffic shaping tests and again is the time between shaper emitted traffic shaping tests and again is the time between shaper emitted
bursts. bursts. This metric shall be reported as an real number of
seconds which cannot be negative, which usually indicates a time
synchronization problem.
4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests 4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests
The stateful metrics will be based on RFC 6349 [RFC 6349] TCP metrics and will The stateful metrics will be based on RFC 6349 TCP metrics and MUST
include: include:
- TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET): RFC 6349 defined the TCP - TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET): RFC 6349 defined the TCP
Transfer Time for bulk transfers, which is simply the measured time Transfer Time for bulk transfers, which is simply the measured time
to transfer bytes across single or concurrent TCP connections. The to transfer bytes across single or concurrent TCP connections. The
TCP test patterns used in traffic management tests will include bulk TCP test patterns used in traffic management tests will include bulk
transfer and interactive applications. The interactive patterns include transfer and interactive applications. The interactive patterns
instances such as HTTP business applications, database applications, include instances such as HTTP business applications, database
etc. The TTPET will be the measure of the time for a single execution applications, etc. The TTPET will be the measure of the time for a
of a TCP Test Pattern (TTP). Average, minimum, and maximum times will single execution of a TCP Test Pattern (TTP). Average, minimum, and
be measured or calculated. maximum times will be measured or calculated and expressed as a real
number of seconds.
An example would be an interactive HTTP TTP session which should take An example would be an interactive HTTP TTP session which should take
5 seconds on a GigE network with 0.5 millisecond latency. During ten (10) 5 seconds on a GigE network with 0.5 millisecond latency. During ten
executions of this TTP, the TTPET results might be: average of 6.5 (10) executions of this TTP, the TTPET results might be: average of
seconds, minimum of 5.0 seconds, and maximum of 7.9 seconds. 6.5 seconds, minimum of 5.0 seconds, and maximum of 7.9 seconds.
- TCP Efficiency: after the execution of the TCP Test Pattern, TCP - TCP Efficiency: after the execution of the TCP Test Pattern, TCP
Efficiency represents the percentage of Bytes that were not Efficiency represents the percentage of Bytes that were not
retransmitted. retransmitted.
Transmitted Bytes - Retransmitted Bytes Transmitted Bytes - Retransmitted Bytes
TCP Efficiency % = --------------------------------------- X 100 TCP Efficiency % = --------------------------------------- X 100
Transmitted Bytes Transmitted Bytes
Transmitted Bytes are the total number of TCP Bytes to be transmitted Transmitted Bytes are the total number of TCP Bytes to be transmitted
including the original and the retransmitted Bytes. These retransmitted including the original and the retransmitted Bytes. These
bytes should be recorded from the sender's TCP/IP stack perspective, retransmitted bytes should be recorded from the sender's TCP/IP stack
to avoid any misinterpretation that a reordered packet is a retransmitted perspective, to avoid any misinterpretation that a reordered packet
packet (as may be the case with packet decode interpretation). is a retransmitted packet (as may be the case with packet decode
interpretation).
- Buffer Delay: represents the increase in RTT during a TCP test - Buffer Delay: represents the increase in RTT during a TCP test
versus the baseline DUT RTT (non congested, inherent latency). RTT versus the baseline DUT RTT (non congested, inherent latency). RTT
and the technique to measure RTT (average versus baseline) are defined and the technique to measure RTT (average versus baseline) are
in RFC 6349. Referencing RFC 6349, the average RTT is derived from defined in RFC 6349. Referencing RFC 6349, the average RTT is
the total of all measured RTTs during the actual test sampled at every derived from the total of all measured RTTs during the actual test
second divided by the test duration in seconds. sampled at every second divided by the test duration in seconds.
Total RTTs during transfer Total RTTs during transfer
Average RTT during transfer = ----------------------------- Average RTT during transfer = -----------------------------
Transfer duration in seconds Transfer duration in seconds
Average RTT during Transfer - Baseline RTT Average RTT during Transfer - Baseline RTT
Buffer Delay % = ------------------------------------------ X 100 Buffer Delay % = ------------------------------------------ X 100
Baseline RTT Baseline RTT
Note that even though this was not explicitly stated in RFC 6349, Note that even though this was not explicitly stated in RFC 6349,
retransmitted packets should not be used in RTT measurements. retransmitted packets should not be used in RTT measurements.
Also, the test results should record the average RTT in millisecond Also, the test results should record the average RTT in millisecond
across the entire test duration and number of samples. across the entire test duration and number of samples.
5. Tester Capabilities 5. Tester Capabilities
The testing capabilities of the traffic management test environment The testing capabilities of the traffic management test environment
are divided into two (2) sections: stateless traffic testing and are divided into two (2) sections: stateless traffic testing and
stateful traffic testing stateful traffic testing
5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation 5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation
The test device must be capable of generating traffic at up to the The test device MUST be capable of generating traffic at up to the
link speed of the DUT. The test device must be calibrated to verify link speed of the DUT. The test device must be calibrated to verify
that it will not drop any packets. The test device's inherent PD and that it will not drop any packets. The test device's inherent PD and
PDV must also be calibrated and subtracted from the PD and PDV metrics. PDV must also be calibrated and subtracted from the PD and PDV
The test device must support the encapsulation to be tested such as metrics. The test device must support the encapsulation to be
IEEE 802.1Q VLAN, IEEE 802.1ad Q-in-Q, Multiprotocol Label Switching tested such as IEEE 802.1Q VLAN, IEEE 802.1ad Q-in-Q, Multiprotocol
(MPLS), etc. Also, the test device must allow control of the Label Switching (MPLS), etc. Also, the test device must allow
classification techniques defined in RFC 4689 (i.e. IP address, DSCP, control of the classification techniques defined in RFC 4689
TOS, etc classification). (i.e. IP address, DSCP, TOS, etc classification).
The open source tool "iperf" can be used to generate stateless UDP The open source tool "iperf" can be used to generate stateless UDP
traffic and is discussed in Appendix A. Since iperf is a software traffic and is discussed in Appendix A. Since iperf is a software
based tool, there will be performance limitations at higher link based tool, there will be performance limitations at higher link
speeds (e.g. GigE, 10 GigE, etc.). Careful calibration of any test speeds (e.g. GigE, 10 GigE, etc.). Careful calibration of any test
environment using iperf is important. At higher link speeds, it is environment using iperf is important. At higher link speeds, it is
recommended to use hardware based packet test equipment. recommended to use hardware based packet test equipment.
5.1.1 Burst Hunt with Stateless Traffic 5.1.1 Burst Hunt with Stateless Traffic
A central theme for the traffic management tests is to benchmark the A central theme for the traffic management tests is to benchmark the
specified burst parameter of traffic management function, since burst specified burst parameter of traffic management function, since burst
parameters of SLAs are specified in bytes. For testing efficiency, parameters of SLAs are specified in bytes. For testing efficiency,
it is recommended to include a burst hunt feature, which automates it is recommended to include a burst hunt feature, which automates
the manual process of determining the maximum burst size which can the manual process of determining the maximum burst size which can
be supported by a traffic management function. be supported by a traffic management function.
The burst hunt algorithm should start at the target burst size (maximum The burst hunt algorithm should start at the target burst size
burst size supported by the traffic management function) and will send (maximum burst size supported by the traffic management function)
single bursts until it can determine the largest burst that can pass and will send single bursts until it can determine the largest burst
without loss. If the target burst size passes, then the test is that can pass without loss. If the target burst size passes, then
complete. The hunt aspect occurs when the target burst size is not the test is complete. The hunt aspect occurs when the target burst
achieved; the algorithm will drop down to a configured minimum burst size is not achieved; the algorithm will drop down to a configured
size and incrementally increase the burst until the maximum burst minimum burst size and incrementally increase the burst until the
supported by the DUT is discovered. The recommended granularity maximum burst supported by the DUT is discovered. The recommended
of the incremental burst size increase is 1 KB. granularity of the incremental burst size increase is 1 KB.
Optionally for a policer function and if the burst size passes, the burst Optionally for a policer function and if the burst size passes, the
should be increased by increments of 1 KB to verify that the policer is burst should be increased by increments of 1 KB to verify that the
truly configured properly (or enabled at all). policer is truly configured properly (or enabled at all).
5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation 5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation
The TCP test host will have many of the same attributes as the TCP test The TCP test host will have many of the same attributes as the TCP
host defined in RFC 6349. The TCP test device may be a standard test host defined in RFC 6349. The TCP test device may be a standard
computer or a dedicated communications test instrument. In both cases, computer or a dedicated communications test instrument. In both
it must be capable of emulating both a client and a server. cases, it must be capable of emulating both a client and a server.
For any test using stateful TCP test traffic, the Network Delay Emulator For any test using stateful TCP test traffic, the Network Delay
(NDE function from the lab set-up diagram) must be used in order to Emulator (NDE function from the lab set-up diagram) must be used in
provide a meaningful BDP. As referenced in section 2, the target order to provide a meaningful BDP. As referenced in section 2, the
traffic rate and configured RTT must be verified independently using target traffic rate and configured RTT MUST be verified independently
just the NDE for all stateful tests (to ensure the NDE can delay without using just the NDE for all stateful tests (to ensure the NDE can
loss). delay without loss).
The TCP test host must be capable to generate and receive stateful TCP The TCP test host MUST be capable to generate and receive stateful
test traffic at the full link speed of the DUT. As a general rule of TCP test traffic at the full link speed of the DUT. As a general
thumb, testing TCP Throughput at rates greater than 500 Mbps may require rule of thumb, testing TCP Throughput at rates greater than 500 Mbps
high performance server hardware or dedicated hardware based test tools. may require high performance server hardware or dedicated hardware
based test tools.
The TCP test host must allow adjusting both Send and Receive Socket The TCP test host MUST allow adjusting both Send and Receive Socket
Buffer sizes. The Socket Buffers must be large enough to fill the BDP Buffer sizes. The Socket Buffers must be large enough to fill the
for bulk transfer TCP test application traffic. BDP for bulk transfer TCP test application traffic.
Measuring RTT and retransmissions per connection will generally require Measuring RTT and retransmissions per connection will generally
a dedicated communications test instrument. In the absence of require a dedicated communications test instrument. In the absence of
dedicated hardware based test tools, these measurements may need to be dedicated hardware based test tools, these measurements may need to
conducted with packet capture tools, i.e. conduct TCP Throughput be conducted with packet capture tools, i.e. conduct TCP Throughput
tests and analyze RTT and retransmissions in packet captures. tests and analyze RTT and retransmissions in packet captures.
The TCP implementation used by the test host must be specified in the The TCP implementation used by the test host MUST be specified in
test results (e.g. TCP New Reno, the test results (e.g. TCP New Reno, TCP options supported, etc.).
TCP options supported, etc.). Additionally, RFC 3148 recommends that specific congestion control
algorithm details that should also be included in the test results.
While RFC 6349 defined the means to conduct throughput tests of TCP bulk While RFC 6349 defined the means to conduct throughput tests of TCP
transfers, the traffic management framework will extend TCP test bulk transfers, the traffic management framework will extend TCP test
execution into interactive TCP application traffic. Examples include execution into interactive TCP application traffic. Examples include
email, HTTP, business applications, etc. This interactive traffic is email, HTTP, business applications, etc. This interactive traffic is
bi-directional and can be chatty. bi-directional and can be chatty, meaning many turns in traffic
communication during the course of a transaction (versus the
relatively uni-directional flow of bulk transfer applications).
The test device must not only support bulk TCP transfer application The test device must not only support bulk TCP transfer application
traffic but also chatty traffic. A valid stress test SHOULD include traffic but MUST also support chatty traffic. A valid stress test
both traffic types. This is due to the non-uniform, bursty nature of SHOULD include both traffic types. This is due to the non-uniform,
chatty applications versus the relatively uniform nature of bulk bursty nature of chatty applications versus the relatively uniform
transfers (the bulk transfer smoothly stabilizes to equilibrium state nature of bulk transfers (the bulk transfer smoothly stabilizes to
under lossless conditions). equilibrium state under lossless conditions).
While iperf is an excellent choice for TCP bulk transfer testing, the While iperf is an excellent choice for TCP bulk transfer testing,
netperf open source tool provides the ability to control the client the netperf open source tool provides the ability to control the
and server request / response behavior. The netperf-wrapper tool is client and server request / response behavior. The netperf-wrapper
a Python wrapper to run multiple simultaneous netperf instances and tool is a Python wrapper to run multiple simultaneous netperf
aggregate the results. Appendix A provides an overview of netperf / instances and aggregate the results. Appendix A provides an overview
netperf-wrapper and another open source application emulation, of netperf / netperf-wrapper and another open source application
Flowgrind. As with any software based tool, the performance must be emulation tools, iperf. As with any software based tool, the
qualified to the link speed to be tested. Hardware-based test performance must be qualified to the link speed to be tested.
equipment should be considered for reliable results at higher links Hardware-based test equipment should be considered for reliable
speeds (e.g. 1 GigE, 10 GigE). results at higher links speeds (e.g. 1 GigE, 10 GigE).
5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions 5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions
As mentioned in the goals of this framework, techniques are defined As mentioned in the goals of this framework, techniques are defined
to specify TCP traffic test patterns to benchmark traffic to specify TCP traffic test patterns to benchmark traffic
management technique(s) and produce repeatable results. Some management technique(s) and produce repeatable results. Some
network devices such as firewalls, will not process stateless test network devices such as firewalls, will not process stateless test
traffic which is another reason why stateful TCP test traffic must traffic which is another reason why stateful TCP test traffic must
be used. be used.
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 53
following diagram illustrates a simple Web Browsing application following diagram illustrates a simple Web Browsing application
(HTTP). (HTTP).
GET url GET url
Client ------------------------> Web Client ------------------------> Web
Web 200 OK 100ms | Web 200 OK 100ms |
Browser <------------------------ Server Browser <------------------------ Server
In this example, the Client Web Browser (Client) requests a URL and In this example, the Client Web Browser (Client) requests a URL and
then the Web Server delivers the web page content to the Client then the Web Server delivers the web page content to the Client
(after a Server delay of 100 millisecond). This asynchronous, (after a Server delay of 100 millisecond). This asynchronous,
"request/response" behavior is intrinsic to most TCP based "request/response" behavior is intrinsic to most TCP based
applications such as Email (SMTP), File Transfers (FTP and SMB), applications such as Email (SMTP), File Transfers (FTP and SMB),
Database (SQL), Web Applications (SOAP), REST, etc. The impact to Database (SQL), Web Applications (SOAP), REST, etc. The impact to
the network elements is due to the multitudes of Clients and the the network elements is due to the multitudes of Clients and the
variety of bursty traffic, which stresses traffic management functions. variety of bursty traffic, which stresses traffic management
The actual emulation of the specific application protocols is not functions. The actual emulation of the specific application
required and TCP test patterns can be defined to mimic the protocols is not required and TCP test patterns can be defined to
application network traffic flows and produce repeatable results. mimic the application network traffic flows and produce repeatable
results.
Application modeling techniques have been proposed in Application modeling techniques have been proposed in
"3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" and provides examples to model the behavior of "3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" and provides examples to model the behavior of
HTTP, FTP, and WAP applications at the TCP layer. The models have HTTP, FTP, and WAP applications at the TCP layer. The models have
been defined with various mathematical distributions for the been defined with various mathematical distributions for the
Request/Response bytes and inter-request gap times. Request/Response bytes and inter-request gap times. The model
definition format described in this work are the basis for the
guidelines provides in Appendix B and are also similar to formats
used by network modeling tools. Packet captures can also be used to
characterize application traffic and specify some of the test
patterns listed in Appendix B.
This framework does not specify a fixed set of TCP test patterns, but This framework does not specify a fixed set of TCP test patterns, but
does provide recommended test cases in Appendix B. Some of these does provide test cases that SHOULD be performed in Appendix B. Some
examples reflect those specified in "draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04" of these examples reflect those specified in "draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-
which suggests traffic mixes for a variety of representative bench-meth-04" which suggests traffic mixes for a variety of
application profiles. Other examples are simply well-known representative application profiles. Other examples are simply
application traffic types such as HTTP. well-known application traffic types such as HTTP.
6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology 6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology
The traffic benchmarking methodology uses the test set-up from The traffic benchmarking methodology uses the test set-up from
section 2 and metrics defined in section 4. section 2 and metrics defined in section 4.
Each test should compare the network device's internal statistics Each test SHOULD compare the network device's internal statistics
(available via command line management interface, SNMP, etc.) to the (available via command line management interface, SNMP, etc.) to the
measured metrics defined in section 4. This evaluates the accuracy measured metrics defined in section 4. This evaluates the accuracy
of the internal traffic management counters under individual test of the internal traffic management counters under individual test
conditions and capacity test conditions that are defined in each conditions and capacity test conditions that are defined in each
subsection. subsection.
From a device configuration standpoint, scheduling and shaping From a device configuration standpoint, scheduling and shaping
functionality can be applied to logical ports such Link Aggregation functionality can be applied to logical ports such Link Aggregation
(LAG). This would result in the same scheduling and shaping (LAG). This would result in the same scheduling and shaping
configuration applied to all the member physical ports. The focus of configuration applied to all the member physical ports. The focus of
this draft is only on tests at a physical port level. this draft is only on tests at a physical port level.
The following sections provide the objective, procedure, metrics, and The following sections provide the objective, procedure, metrics, and
reporting format for each test. For all test steps, the following reporting format for each test. For all test steps, the following
global parameters must be specified: global parameters must be specified:
Test Runs (Tr). Defines the number of times the test needs to be run Test Runs (Tr). Defines the number of times the test needs to be run
to ensure accurate and repeatable results. The recommended value is 3. to ensure accurate and repeatable results. The recommended value is
3.
Test Duration (Td). Defines the duration of a test iteration, expressed Test Duration (Td). Defines the duration of a test iteration,
in seconds. The recommended value it 60 seconds. expressed in seconds. The recommended minimum value is 60 seconds.
The variability in the test results MUST be measured between Test
Runs and if the variation is characterized as a significant portion
of the measured values, the next step may be to revise the methods to
achieve better consistency.
6.1. Policing Tests 6.1. Policing Tests
Policer is defined as the entity performing the policy function. The A policer is defined as the entity performing the policy function.
intent of the policing tests is to verify the policer performance The intent of the policing tests is to verify the policer performance
(i.e. CIR-CBS and EIR-EBS parameters). The tests will verify that the (i.e. CIR-CBS and EIR-EBS parameters). The tests will verify that the
network device can handle the CIR with CBS and the EIR with EBS and network device can handle the CIR with CBS and the EIR with EBS and
will use back-back packet testing concepts from RFC 2544 (but adapted will use back-back packet testing concepts from RFC 2544 (but adapted
to burst size algorithms and terminology). Also MEF-14,19,37 provide to burst size algorithms and terminology). Also MEF-14,19,37 provide
some basis for specific components of this test. The burst hunt some basis for specific components of this test. The burst hunt
algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to automate the algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to automate the
measurement of the CBS value. measurement of the CBS value.
The tests are divided into two (2) sections; individual policer The tests are divided into two (2) sections; individual policer
tests and then full capacity policing tests. It is important to tests and then full capacity policing tests. It is important to
benchmark the basic functionality of the individual policer then benchmark the basic functionality of the individual policer then
proceed into the fully rated capacity of the device. This capacity may proceed into the fully rated capacity of the device. This capacity
include the number of policing policies per device and the number of may include the number of policing policies per device and the
policers simultaneously active across all ports. number of policers simultaneously active across all ports.
6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests 6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests
Objective: Objective:
Test a policer as defined by RFC 4115 or MEF 10.2, depending upon the Test a policer as defined by RFC 4115 or MEF 10.2, depending upon the
equipment's specification. In addition to verifying that the policer equipment's specification. In addition to verifying that the policer
allows the specified CBS and EBS bursts to pass, the policer test MUST allows the specified CBS and EBS bursts to pass, the policer test
verify that the policer will remark or drop excess, and pass traffic at MUST verify that the policer will remark or drop excess, and pass
the specified CBS/EBS values. traffic at the specified CBS/EBS values.
Test Summary: Test Summary:
Policing tests should use stateless traffic. Stateful TCP test traffic Policing tests should use stateless traffic. Stateful TCP test
will generally be adversely affected by a policer in the absence of traffic will generally be adversely affected by a policer in the
traffic shaping. So while TCP traffic could be used, it is more absence of traffic shaping. So while TCP traffic could be used,
accurate to benchmark a policer with stateless traffic. it is more accurate to benchmark a policer with stateless traffic.
As an example for RFC 4115, consider a CBS and EBS of 64KB and CIR and As an example for RFC 4115, consider a CBS and EBS of 64KB and CIR
EIR of 100 Mbps on a 1GigE physical link (in color-blind mode). A and EIR of 100 Mbps on a 1GigE physical link (in color-blind mode).
stateless traffic burst of 64KB would be sent into the policer at the A stateless traffic burst of 64KB would be sent into the policer at
GigE rate. This equates to approximately a 0.512 millisecond burst the GigE rate. This equates to approximately a 0.512 millisecond
time (64 KB at 1 GigE). The traffic generator must space these bursts burst time (64 KB at 1 GigE). The traffic generator must space these
to ensure that the aggregate throughput does not exceed the CIR. The bursts to ensure that the aggregate throughput does not exceed the
Ti between the bursts would equal CBS * 8 / CIR = 5.12 millisecond CIR. The Ti between the bursts would equal CBS * 8 / CIR = 5.12
in this example. millisecond in this example.
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded. be measured at the egress port and recorded.
Procedure: Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and 1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and
CBS/EBS values to be tested CBS/EBS values to be tested
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal 2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to CBS and an interval equal to Ti (CBS in bits / CIR) to CBS and an interval equal to Ti (CBS in bits / CIR)
3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into 3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into
the policer ingress port and measure the metrics defined in the policer ingress port and measure the metrics defined in
section 4.1 (BSA, LP. OOS, PD, and PDV) at the egress port and across section 4.1 (BSA, LP. OOS, PD, and PDV) at the egress port and
the entire Td (default 60 seconds duration) across the entire Td (default 60 seconds duration)
4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS limit 4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS
traffic into the policer ingress port and verify that the policer limit traffic into the policer ingress port and verify that the
only allowed the BSA bytes to exit the egress. The excess burst MUST policer only allowed the BSA bytes to exit the egress. The excess
be recorded and the recommended value is 1000 bytes. Additional tests burst MUST be recorded and the recommended value is 1000 bytes.
beyond the simple color-blind example might include: color-aware mode, Additional tests beyond the simple color-blind example might
configurations where EIR is greater than CIR, etc. include: color-aware mode, configurations where EIR is greater
than CIR, etc.
Reporting Format: Reporting Format:
The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each
CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run and a recommended format is as follows: CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run and a recommended format is as follows:
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: CIR, EIR, CBS, EBS DUT Configuration Summary: CIR, EIR, CBS, EBS
skipping to change at page 17, line 13 skipping to change at page 16, line 50
******************************************************** ********************************************************
6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests 6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests
Objective: Objective:
The intent of the capacity tests is to verify the policer performance The intent of the capacity tests is to verify the policer performance
in a scaled environment with multiple ingress customer policers on in a scaled environment with multiple ingress customer policers on
multiple physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum number multiple physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum number
of active policers as specified by the device manufacturer. of active policers as specified by the device manufacturer.
Test Summary: Test Summary:
The specified policing function capacity is generally expressed in The specified policing function capacity is generally expressed in
terms of the number of policers active on each individual physical terms of the number of policers active on each individual physical
port as well as the number of unique policer rates that are utilized. port as well as the number of unique policer rates that are utilized.
For all of the capacity tests, the benchmarking test procedure and For all of the capacity tests, the benchmarking test procedure and
report format described in Section 6.1.1 for a single policer MUST report format described in Section 6.1.1 for a single policer MUST
be applied to each of the physical port policers. be applied to each of the physical port policers.
As an example, a Layer 2 switching device may specify that each of the As an example, a Layer 2 switching device may specify that each of
32 physical ports can be policed using a pool of policing service the 32 physical ports can be policed using a pool of policing service
policies. The device may carry a single customer's traffic on each policies. The device may carry a single customer's traffic on each
physical port and a single policer is instantiated per physical port. physical port and a single policer is instantiated per physical port.
Another possibility is that a single physical port may carry multiple Another possibility is that a single physical port may carry multiple
customers, in which case many customer flows would be policed customers, in which case many customer flows would be policed
concurrently on an individual physical port (separate policers per concurrently on an individual physical port (separate policers per
customer on an individual port). customer on an individual port).
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded. be measured at the egress port and recorded.
The following sections provide the specific test scenarios, The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
procedures, and reporting formats for each policer capacity test. procedures, and reporting formats for each policer capacity test.
6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port Test 6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port Test
Test Summary: Test Summary:
The first policer capacity test will benchmark a single physical port, The first policer capacity test will benchmark a single physical
maximum policers on that physical port. port, maximum policers on that physical port.
Assume multiple categories of ingress policers at rates r1, r2,...rn. Assume multiple categories of ingress policers at rates r1, r2,...rn.
There are multiple customers on a single physical port. Each customer There are multiple customers on a single physical port. Each customer
could be represented by a single tagged vlan, double tagged vlan, could be represented by a single tagged vlan, double tagged vlan,
VPLS instance etc. Each customer is mapped to a different policer. VPLS instance etc. Each customer is mapped to a different policer.
Each of the policers can be of rates r1, r2,..., rn. Each of the policers can be of rates r1, r2,..., rn.
An example configuration would be An example configuration would be
- Y1 customers, policer rate r1 - Y1 customers, policer rate r1
- Y2 customers, policer rate r2 - Y2 customers, policer rate r2
- Y3 customers, policer rate r3 - Y3 customers, policer rate r3
... ...
- Yn customers, policer rate rn - Yn customers, policer rate rn
Some bandwidth on the physical port is dedicated for other traffic (non
customer traffic); this includes network control protocol traffic. There Some bandwidth on the physical port is dedicated for other traffic
is a separate policer for the other traffic. Typical deployments have 3 non customer traffic); this includes network control protocol
categories of policers; there may be some deployments with more or less traffic. There is a separate policer for the other traffic. Typical
than 3 categories of ingress policers. deployments have 3 categories of policers; there may be some
deployments with more or less than 3 categories of ingress
policers.
Test Procedure: Test Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and 1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and
CBS/EBS values for each policer rate (r1-rn) to be tested CBS/EBS values for each policer rate (r1-rn) to be tested
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal to 2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
CBS and an interval equal to TI (CBS in bits/CIR) for each customer to CBS and an interval equal to TI (CBS in bits/CIR) for each
stream (Y1 - Yn). The encapsulation for each customer must also be customer stream (Y1 - Yn). The encapsulation for each customer
configured according to the service tested (VLAN, VPLS, IP mapping, must also be configured according to the service tested (VLAN,
etc.). VPLS, IP mapping, etc.).
3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into the 3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into
policer ingress port for each customer traffic stream and measure the the policer ingress port for each customer traffic stream and
metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) at the measure the metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and
egress port for each stream and across the entire Td (default 30 PDV) at the egress port for each stream and across the entire Td
seconds duration) (default 30 seconds duration)
4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS limit 4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS
traffic into the policer ingress port for each customer traffic limit traffic into the policer ingress port for each customer
stream and verify that the policer only allowed the BSA bytes to exit traffic stream and verify that the policer only allowed the BSA
the egress for each stream. The excess burst MUST recorded and the bytes to exit the egress for each stream. The excess burst MUST
recommended value is 1000 bytes. recorded and the recommended value is 1000 bytes.
Reporting Format: Reporting Format:
The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each
CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run, per customer traffic stream. CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run, per customer traffic stream.
A recommended format is as follows: A recommended format is as follows:
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
skipping to change at page 19, line 36 skipping to change at page 18, line 48
Customer Stream Y1-Yn (see note), Excess Traffic Test: BSA Customer Stream Y1-Yn (see note), Excess Traffic Test: BSA
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Note: For each test run, there will be a two (2) rows for each Note: For each test run, there will be a two (2) rows for each
customer stream, the compliant traffic result and the excess traffic customer stream, the compliant traffic result and the excess traffic
result. result.
6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports 6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports
Test Summary: Test Summary:
The second policer capacity test involves a single Policer function per The second policer capacity test involves a single Policer function
physical port with all physical ports active. In this test, there is a per physical port with all physical ports active. In this test,
single policer per physical port. The policer can have one of the rates there is a single policer per physical port. The policer can have
r1, r2,.., rn. All the physical ports in the networking device are one of the rates r1, r2,.., rn. All the physical ports in the
active. networking device are active.
Procedure: Procedure:
The procedure is identical to 6.1.1, the configured parameters must be The procedure is identical to 6.1.1, the configured parameters must
reported per port and the test report must include results per be reported per port and the test report must include results per
measured egress port measured egress port
6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports 6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports
Finally the third policer capacity test involves a combination of the Finally the third policer capacity test involves a combination of the
first and second capacity test, namely maximum policers active per first and second capacity test, namely maximum policers active per
physical port and all physical ports are active. physical port and all physical ports are active.
Procedure: Procedure:
Uses the procedural method from 6.1.2.1 and the configured parameters Uses the procedural method from 6.1.2.1 and the configured parameters
skipping to change at page 20, line 50 skipping to change at page 20, line 13
transmitted to test this QL. transmitted to test this QL.
A queue should be able to handle repetitive bursts with the A queue should be able to handle repetitive bursts with the
transmission gaps proportional to the bottleneck bandwidth. This transmission gaps proportional to the bottleneck bandwidth. This
gap is referred to as the transmission interval (Ti). Ti can gap is referred to as the transmission interval (Ti). Ti can
be defined for the traffic bursts and is based off of the QL and be defined for the traffic bursts and is based off of the QL and
Bottleneck Bandwidth (BB) of the egress interface. Bottleneck Bandwidth (BB) of the egress interface.
Ti = QL * 8 / BB Ti = QL * 8 / BB
Note that this equation is similar to the Ti required for transmission Note that this equation is similar to the Ti required for
into a policer (QL = CBS, BB = CIR). Also note that the burst hunt transmission into a policer (QL = CBS, BB = CIR). Also note that the
algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to automate the burst hunt algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to
measurement of the queue value. automate the measurement of the queue value.
The stateless traffic burst shall be transmitted at the link speed The stateless traffic burst shall be transmitted at the link speed
and spaced within the Ti time interval. The metrics defined in section and spaced within the Ti time interval. The metrics defined in
4.1 shall be measured at the egress port and recorded; the primary section 4.1 shall be measured at the egress port and recorded; the
result is to verify the BSA and that no packets are dropped. primary result is to verify the BSA and that no packets are dropped.
The scheduling function must also be characterized to benchmark the The scheduling function must also be characterized to benchmark the
device's ability to schedule the queues according to the priority. device's ability to schedule the queues according to the priority.
An example would be 2 levels of priority including SP and FIFO An example would be 2 levels of priority including SP and FIFO
queueing. Under a flow load greater the egress port speed, the queueing. Under a flow load greater the egress port speed, the
higher priority packets should be transmitted without drops (and higher priority packets should be transmitted without drops (and
also maintain low latency), while the lower priority (or best also maintain low latency), while the lower priority (or best
effort) queue may be dropped. effort) queue may be dropped.
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
skipping to change at page 20, line 80 skipping to change at page 20, line 43
be measured at the egress port and recorded. be measured at the egress port and recorded.
Procedure: Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique 1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique
(FIFO, SP, etc) parameters (FIFO, SP, etc) parameters
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal 2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB) to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB)
3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the 3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the
metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) at the egress metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) at the
port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds duration) egress port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds
duration)
Report Format: Report Format:
The Queue/Scheduler Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain The Queue/Scheduler Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain
all results for each QL/BB test run and a recommended format is as all results for each QL/BB test run and a recommended format is as
follows: follows:
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Scheduling technique, BB and QL DUT Configuration Summary: Scheduling technique, BB and QL
The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows, The results table should contain entries for each test run
as follows,
(Test #1 to Test #Tr). (Test #1 to Test #Tr).
- LP, OOS, PD, and PDV - LP, OOS, PD, and PDV
******************************************************** ********************************************************
6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic 6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic
Objective: Objective:
Verify that the configured queue and scheduling technique can handle Verify that the configured queue and scheduling technique can handle
stateless traffic bursts up to the queue depth. stateful traffic bursts up to the queue depth.
Test Background and Summary: Test Background and Summary:
To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4 To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4
devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is recommended devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is recommended
for the queue tests. Stateful traffic tests will also utilize the for the queue tests. Stateful traffic tests will also utilize the
Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up configuration in Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up configuration in
section 2. section 2.
The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calibrated to the QL of the The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calibrated to the QL of the
device queue. Referencing RFC 6349, the BDP is equal to: device queue. Referencing RFC 6349, the BDP is equal to:
skipping to change at page 20, line 132 skipping to change at page 21, line 51
- Egress link = 100 Mbps (BB) - Egress link = 100 Mbps (BB)
- QL = 32KB - QL = 32KB
RTT(min) = QL * 8 / BB and would equal 2.56 millisecond (and the RTT(min) = QL * 8 / BB and would equal 2.56 millisecond (and the
BDP = 32KB) BDP = 32KB)
In this example, one (1) TCP connection with window size / SSB of In this example, one (1) TCP connection with window size / SSB of
32KB would be required to test the QL of 32KB. This Bulk Transfer 32KB would be required to test the QL of 32KB. This Bulk Transfer
Test can be accomplished using iperf as described in Appendix A. Test can be accomplished using iperf as described in Appendix A.
Two types of TCP tests must be performed: Bulk Transfer test and Micro Two types of TCP tests MUST be performed: Bulk Transfer test and
Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B. The Bulk Transfer Micro Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B. The Bulk
Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion Avoidance) Transfer Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion
state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application layer bursting Avoidance) state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application
which may occur any time during the TCP connection. layer bursting which may occur any time during the TCP connection.
Other tests types should include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site, Other tests types SHOULD include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site,
Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also
documented in Appendix B). documented in Appendix B).
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in
section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET), section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET),
TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay. TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay.
Procedure: Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique 1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique
(FIFO, SP, etc) parameters (FIFO, SP, etc) parameters
2. Configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an 2. Configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an
application traffic mixture application traffic mixture
- The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage - The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage
of the total bandwidth to be tested of the total bandwidth to be tested
- The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture - The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture
MUST be also be configurable MUST be also be configurable
* The tester MUST be capable of generating a precise TCP test * The tester MUST be capable of generating a precise TCP test
patterns for each application specified, to ensure repeatable results. patterns for each application specified, to ensure repeatable
results.
3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and 3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and
egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure the metrics (TTPET, egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure application
TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay) per application stream and at the throughput the metrics (TTPET, TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay),
ingress and egress port (across the entire Td, default 60 seconds
duration). per application stream and at the ingress and egress port (across
the entire Td, default 60 seconds duration).
Concerning application measurements, a couple of items require
clarification. An application session may be comprised of a single
TCP connection or multiple TCP connections.
For the single TCP connection application sessions, the application
thoughput / metrics have a 1-1 relationship to the TCP connection
measurements.
If an application session (i.e. HTTP-based application) utilizes
multiple TCP connections, then all of the TCP connections are
aggregated in the application throughput measurement / metrics for
that application.
Then there is the case of mulitlple instances of an application
session (i.e. multiple FTPs emulating multiple clients). In this
situation, the test should measure / record each FTP application
session independently, tabulating the minimum, maximum, and average
for all FTP sessions.
Finally, application throughput measurements are based off of Layer 4
TCP throughput and do not include bytes retransmitted. The TCP
Efficiency metric MUST be measured during the test and provides a
measure of "goodput" during each test.
Reporting Format: Reporting Format:
The Queue/Scheduler Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain all The Queue/Scheduler Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain
results for each traffic scheduler and QL/BB test run and a recommended all results for each traffic scheduler and QL/BB test run and a
format is as follows: recommended format is as follows:
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Scheduling technique, BB and QL DUT Configuration Summary: Scheduling technique, BB and QL
Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured of Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured
each application type of each application type
The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows, The results table should contain entries for each test run with
(Test #1 to Test #Tr). minimum, maximum, and average per application session as follows,
(Test #1 to Test #Tr)
- Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET - Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET
- Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out - Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out
- Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay - Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay
******************************************************** ********************************************************
6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests 6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests
Objective: Objective:
The intent of these capacity tests is to benchmark queue/scheduler The intent of these capacity tests is to benchmark queue/scheduler
performance in a scaled environment with multiple queues/schedulers performance in a scaled environment with multiple queues/schedulers
active on multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark active on multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark
the maximum number of queues and schedulers as specified by the the maximum number of queues and schedulers as specified by the
device manufacturer. Each priority in the system will map to a device manufacturer. Each priority in the system will map to a
separate queue. separate queue.
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded. be measured at the egress port and recorded.
The following sections provide the specific test scenarios, procedures, The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
and reporting formats for each queue / scheduler capacity test. procedures, and reporting formats for each queue / scheduler capacity
test.
6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active 6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active
For the first scheduler / queue capacity test, multiple queues per For the first scheduler / queue capacity test, multiple queues per
port will be tested on a single physical port. In this case, port will be tested on a single physical port. In this case,
all the queues (typically 8) are active on a single physical port. all the queues (typically 8) are active on a single physical port.
Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the
same egress physical port which will cause oversubscription on the same egress physical port which will cause oversubscription on the
egress physical port. egress physical port.
skipping to change at page 20, line 231 skipping to change at page 24, line 15
6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port 6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port
Test Summary: Test Summary:
For this test, Strict Priority (SP) scheduling on the egress For this test, Strict Priority (SP) scheduling on the egress
physical port should be tested and the benchmarking methodology physical port should be tested and the benchmarking methodology
specified in section 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, specified in section 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics,
and reporting format) should be applied here. For a given and reporting format) should be applied here. For a given
priority, each ingress physical port should get a fair share of priority, each ingress physical port should get a fair share of
the egress physical port bandwidth. the egress physical port bandwidth.
TBD: RAMKI, do we need a concrete example?
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report
results format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include: results format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration: Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate
/ mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port / mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
skipping to change at page 20, line 253 skipping to change at page 24, line 35
Report results: Report results:
- For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput - For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput
rate and metrics at the egress port rate and metrics at the egress port
6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ) on Egress Port 6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ) on Egress Port
Test Summary: Test Summary:
For this test, Strict Priority (SP) and Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ) For this test, Strict Priority (SP) and Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ)
should be enabled simultaneously in the scheduler but on a single should be enabled simultaneously in the scheduler but on a single
egress port. The benchmarking methodology specified in Section egress port. The benchmarking methodology specified in Section
6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format) 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format)
should be applied here. Additionally, the egress port bandwidth should be applied here. Additionally, the egress port bandwidth
sharing among weighted queues should be proportional to the assigned sharing among weighted queues should be proportional to the assigned
weights. For a given priority, each ingress physical port should get weights. For a given priority, each ingress physical port should get
a fair share of the egress physical port bandwidth. a fair share of the egress physical port bandwidth.
TBD: RAMKI, do we need a concrete example?
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include: format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration: Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
Report results: Report results:
- For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput rate - For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput rate
and metrics at each queue of the egress port queue (both the SP and metrics at each queue of the egress port queue (both the SP
and WFQ queue). and WFQ queue).
Example: Example:
- Egress Port SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams
- Egress Port WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n 1-n
- Egress Port WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams
1-n
6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active 6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active
Test Summary: Test Summary:
Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the
same egress physical port, which will cause oversubscription on the same egress physical port, which will cause oversubscription on the
egress physical port. Also, the same amount of traffic is directed egress physical port. Also, the same amount of traffic is directed
to each egress physical port. to each egress physical port.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.2.1.1 The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.2.1.1
and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format) should be and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format) should be
applied here. Each ingress physical port should get a fair share of applied here. Each ingress physical port should get a fair share of
the egress physical port bandwidth. Additionally, each egress the egress physical port bandwidth. Additionally, each egress
physical port should receive the same amount of traffic. physical port should receive the same amount of traffic.
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include: format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration: Configuration:
- The number of ingress ports active during the test - The number of ingress ports active during the test
- The number of egress ports active during the test - The number of egress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
skipping to change at page 20, line 342 skipping to change at page 26, line 20
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
Report results: Report results:
- For each egress port, the achieved throughput rate and metrics at - For each egress port, the achieved throughput rate and metrics at
each egress port queue for each ingress port stream. each egress port queue for each ingress port stream.
Example: Example:
- Egress Port 1, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port 1, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
- Egress Port 2, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n streams 1-n
- Egress Port 2, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
streams 1-n
. .
. .
- Egress Port n, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port n, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
- Egress Port n, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n streams 1-n
- Egress Port n, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
streams 1-n
6.3. Shaper tests 6.3. Shaper tests
A traffic shaper is memory based like a queue, but with the added A traffic shaper is memory based like a queue, but with the added
intelligence of an active traffic scheduler. The same concepts from intelligence of an active traffic scheduler. The same concepts from
section 6.2 (Queue testing) can be applied to testing network device section 6.2 (Queue testing) can be applied to testing network device
shaper. shaper.
Again, the tests are divided into two sections; individual shaper Again, the tests are divided into two sections; individual shaper
benchmark tests and then full capacity shaper benchmark tests. benchmark tests and then full capacity shaper benchmark tests.
skipping to change at page 27, line 47 skipping to change at page 27, line 22
Test Summary: Test Summary:
The stateless traffic must be burst into the DUT ingress port and The stateless traffic must be burst into the DUT ingress port and
not exceed the Ingress Queue. The burst can be a single burst or not exceed the Ingress Queue. The burst can be a single burst or
multiple bursts. If multiple bursts are transmitted, then the multiple bursts. If multiple bursts are transmitted, then the
Ti (Time interval) must be large enough so that the Shaper Rate is Ti (Time interval) must be large enough so that the Shaper Rate is
not exceeded. An example will clarify single and multiple burst not exceeded. An example will clarify single and multiple burst
test cases. test cases.
In the example, the shaper's ingress and egress ports are both full In the example, the shaper's ingress and egress ports are both full
duplex Gigabit Ethernet. The Ingress Queue is configured to be duplex Gigabit Ethernet. The Ingress Queue is configured to be
512,000 bytes, the Shaper Rate (SR) = 50 Mbps, and both Bc/Be configured 512,000 bytes, the Shaper Rate (SR) = 50 Mbps, and both Bc/Be
to be 32,000 bytes. For a single burst test, the transmitting test configured to be 32,000 bytes. For a single burst test, the
device would burst 512,000 bytes maximum into the ingress port and transmitting test device would burst 512,000 bytes maximum into the
then stop transmitting. ingress port and then stop transmitting.
If a multiple burst test is to be conducted, then the burst bytes If a multiple burst test is to be conducted, then the burst bytes
divided by the time interval between the 512,000 byte bursts must divided by the time interval between the 512,000 byte bursts must
not exceed the Shaper Rate. The time interval (Ti) must adhere to not exceed the Shaper Rate. The time interval (Ti) must adhere to
a similar formula as described in section 6.2.1.1 for queues, namely: a similar formula as described in section 6.2.1.1 for queues, namely:
Ti = Ingress Queue x 8 / Shaper Rate Ti = Ingress Queue x 8 / Shaper Rate
So for the example from the previous paragraph, Ti between bursts must For the example from the previous paragraph, Ti between bursts must
be greater than 82 millisecond (512,000 bytes x 8 / 50,000,000 bps). be greater than 82 millisecond (512,000 bytes x 8 / 50,000,000 bps).
This yields an average rate of 50 Mbps so that an Input Queue This yields an average rate of 50 Mbps so that an Input Queue
would not overflow. would not overflow.
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
- The metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI) SHALL - The metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI)
be measured at the egress port and recorded. SHALL be measured at the egress port and recorded.
Procedure: Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper 1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper
egress rate parameters (SR, Bc, Be) parameters egress rate parameters (SR, Bc, Be) parameters
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal 2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB) to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB)
3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the metrics 3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the metrics
defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI) at the egress defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI) at the egress
port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds duration) port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds duration)
Report Format: Report Format:
The Shaper Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain all results The Shaper Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain all
for each QL/SR test run and a recommended format is as follows: results for each QL/SR test run and a recommended format is as
follows:
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR
The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows, The results table should contain entries for each test run as
(Test #1 to Test #Tr). follows,(Test #1 to Test #Tr).
- LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI - LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI
******************************************************** ********************************************************
6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic 6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic
Objective: Objective:
Test a shaper by transmitting stateful traffic bursts into the shaper Test a shaper by transmitting stateful traffic bursts into the shaper
ingress port and verifying that the egress traffic is shaped according ingress port and verifying that the egress traffic is shaped
to the shaper traffic profile. according to the shaper traffic profile.
Test Summary: Test Summary:
To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4 To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4
devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is also devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is also
recommended for the shaper tests. Stateful traffic tests will also recommended for the shaper tests. Stateful traffic tests will also
utilize the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up utilize the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up
configuration in section 2. configuration in section 2.
The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calculated as described in The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calculated as described in
section 6.2.2. To properly stress network buffers and the traffic section 6.2.2. To properly stress network buffers and the traffic
skipping to change at page 29, line 25 skipping to change at page 28, line 54
TCP window size* for each connection x number of connections TCP window size* for each connection x number of connections
* as described in section 3 of RFC6349, the SSB MUST be large * as described in section 3 of RFC6349, the SSB MUST be large
enough to fill the BDP enough to fill the BDP
Example, if the BDP is equal to 256 Kbytes and a connection size of Example, if the BDP is equal to 256 Kbytes and a connection size of
64Kbytes is used for each connection, then it would require four (4) 64Kbytes is used for each connection, then it would require four (4)
connections to fill the BDP and 5-6 connections (over subscribe the connections to fill the BDP and 5-6 connections (over subscribe the
BDP) to stress test the traffic shaping function. BDP) to stress test the traffic shaping function.
Two types of TCP tests must be performed: Bulk Transfer test and Micro Two types of TCP tests MUST be performed: Bulk Transfer test and
Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B. The Bulk Transfer Micro Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B. The Bulk
Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion Avoidance) Transfer Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion
state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application layer bursting Avoidance) state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application
which may any time during the TCP connection. layer bursting which may any time during the TCP connection.
Other tests types should include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site, Other tests types SHOULD include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site,
Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also
documented in Appendix B). documented in Appendix B).
Test Metrics: Test Metrics:
The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in
section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET), section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET),
TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay. TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay.
Procedure: Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper 1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper
skipping to change at page 29, line 53 skipping to change at page 29, line 27
2. Configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an 2. Configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an
application traffic mixture application traffic mixture
- The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage - The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage
of the total bandwidth to be tested of the total bandwidth to be tested
- The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture - The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture
MUST be also be configurable MUST be also be configurable
*The tester MUST be capable of generating precise TCP test patterns for *The tester MUST be capable of generating precise TCP test patterns
each application specified, to ensure repeatable results. for each application specified, to ensure repeatable results.
3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and 3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and
egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure the metrics (TTPET, egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure the metrics
TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay) per application stream and at the (TTPET, TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay) per application stream
ingress and egress port (across the entire Td, default 30 seconds and at the ingress and egress port (across the entire Td, default
duration). 30 seconds duration).
Reporting Format: Reporting Format:
The Shaper Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain all results The Shaper Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain all
for each traffic scheduler and QL/SR test run and a recommended format results for each traffic scheduler and QL/SR test run and a
is as follows: recommended format is as follows:
******************************************************** ********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR
Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured of
each application type
The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows, Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured
(Test #1 to Test #Tr). of each application type
The results table should contain entries for each test run with
minimum, maximum, and average per application session as follows,
(Test #1 to Test #Tr)
- Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET - Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET
- Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out - Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out
- Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay - Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay
******************************************************** ********************************************************
6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests 6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests
Objective: Objective:
The intent of these scalability tests is to verify shaper performance The intent of these scalability tests is to verify shaper performance
in a scaled environment with shapers active on multiple queues on in a scaled environment with shapers active on multiple queues on
multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum
number of shapers as specified by the device manufacturer. number of shapers as specified by the device manufacturer.
The following sections provide the specific test scenarios, procedures, The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
and reporting formats for each shaper capacity test. procedures, and reporting formats for each shaper capacity test.
6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active 6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active
Test Summary: Test Summary:
The first shaper capacity test involves per port shaping, all physical The first shaper capacity test involves per port shaping, all
ports active. Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed physical ports active. Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports
to the same egress physical port and this will cause oversubscription are directed to the same egress physical port and this will cause
on the egress physical port. Also, the same amount of traffic is oversubscription on the egress physical port. Also, the same amount
directed to each egress physical port. of traffic is directed to each egress physical port.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure, The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is a metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
capacity test, the configuration and report results format from 6.3.1 a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
MUST also include: 6.3.1 MUST also include:
Configuration: Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical ingress - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
port ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / mixture - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
- The shaped egress ports shaper parameters (QL, SR, Bc, Be) - The shaped egress ports shaper parameters (QL, SR, Bc, Be)
Report results: Report results:
- For each active egress port, the achieved throughput rate and shaper - For each active egress port, the achieved throughput rate and
metrics for each ingress port traffic stream shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream
Example: Example:
- Egress Port 1: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port 1: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port n: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port n: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active 6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active
Test Summary: Test Summary:
The second shaper capacity test is conducted with all queues actively The second shaper capacity test is conducted with all queues actively
shaping on a single physical port. The benchmarking methodology shaping on a single physical port. The benchmarking methodology
skipping to change at page 31, line 50 skipping to change at page 31, line 23
metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
6.3.1 MUST also include: 6.3.1 MUST also include:
Configuration: Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate/mixture - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate/mixture
for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
- For the active egress port, each shaper queue parameters (QL, SR, Bc, Be) - For the active egress port, each shaper queue parameters (QL, SR,
Bc, Be)
Report results: Report results:
- For each queue of the active egress port, the achieved throughput - For each queue of the active egress port, the achieved throughput
rate and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream rate and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream
Example: Example:
- Egress Port High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
- Egress Port Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active 6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active
Test Summary: Test Summary:
And for the third shaper capacity test (which is a combination of the And for the third shaper capacity test (which is a combination of the
tests in the previous two sections),all queues will be actively tests in the previous two sections),all queues will be actively
shaping and all physical ports active. shaping and all physical ports active.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure, metrics, The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is a capacity test, metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
the configuration and report results format from 6.3.1 MUST also include: a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
6.3.1 MUST also include:
Configuration: Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical ingress port - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / mixture for ingress port
stateful traffic for each physical ingress port - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
- For each of the active egress ports, shaper port and per queue parameters mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
(QL, SR, Bc, Be) - For each of the active egress ports, shaper port and per queue
parameters(QL, SR, Bc, Be)
Report results: Report results:
- For each queue of each active egress port, the achieved throughput rate - For each queue of each active egress port, the achieved throughput
and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream rate and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream
Example: Example:
- Egress Port 1 High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port 1 High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
- Egress Port 1 Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n ingress streams 1-n
. - Egress Port 1 Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
. .
- Egress Port n High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n - Egress Port n High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
- Egress Port n Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port n Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
6.4 Concurrent Capacity Load Tests 6.4 Concurrent Capacity Load Tests
As mentioned in the scope of this document, it is impossible to As mentioned in the scope of this document, it is impossible to
specify the various permutations of concurrent traffic management specify the various permutations of concurrent traffic management
functions that should be tested in a device for capacity testing. functions that should be tested in a device for capacity testing.
However, some profiles are listed below which may be useful However, some profiles are listed below which may be useful
to test under capacity as well: to test under capacity as well:
- Policers on ingress and queuing on egress - Policers on ingress and queuing on egress
- Policers on ingress and shapers on egress (not intended for a - Policers on ingress and shapers on egress (not intended for a
flow to be policed then shaped, these would be two different flow to be policed then shaped, these would be two different
flows tested at the same time) flows tested at the same time)
- etc. - etc.
The test procedures and reporting formatting from the previous sections may The test procedures and reporting formatting from the previous
be modified to accommodate the capacity test profile. sections may be modified to accommodate the capacity test profile.
Appendix A: Open Source Tools for Traffic Management Testing Appendix A: Open Source Tools for Traffic Management Testing
This framework specifies that stateless and stateful behaviors SHOULD
This framework specifies that stateless and stateful behaviors should both be tested. Four (4) open source tools that can be used are
both be tested. Three (3) open source tools that can be used are iperf, netperf (with netperf-wrapper), uperf, and TMIX to accomplish
iperf, netperf (with netperf-wrapper),and Flowgrind to accomplish
many of the tests proposed in this framework. many of the tests proposed in this framework.
Iperf can generate UDP or TCP based traffic; a client and server must Iperf can generate UDP or TCP based traffic; a client and server must
both run the iperf software in the same traffic mode. The server is both run the iperf software in the same traffic mode. The server is
set up to listen and then the test traffic is controlled from the set up to listen and then the test traffic is controlled from the
client. Both uni-directional and bi-directional concurrent testing client. Both uni-directional and bi-directional concurrent testing
are supported. are supported.
The UDP mode can be used for the stateless traffic testing. The The UDP mode can be used for the stateless traffic testing. The
target bandwidth, packet size, UDP port, and test duration can be target bandwidth, packet size, UDP port, and test duration can be
skipping to change at page 33, line 31 skipping to change at page 33, line 7
variation are provided by the iperf receiver. variation are provided by the iperf receiver.
The TCP mode can be used for stateful traffic testing to test bulk The TCP mode can be used for stateful traffic testing to test bulk
transfer traffic. The TCP Window size (which is actually the SSB), transfer traffic. The TCP Window size (which is actually the SSB),
the number of connections, the packet size, TCP port and the test the number of connections, the packet size, TCP port and the test
duration can be controlled. A report of bytes transmitted and duration can be controlled. A report of bytes transmitted and
throughput achieved are provided by the iperf sender. throughput achieved are provided by the iperf sender.
Netperf is a software application that provides network bandwidth Netperf is a software application that provides network bandwidth
testing between two hosts on a network. It supports Unix domain testing between two hosts on a network. It supports Unix domain
sockets, TCP, SCTP, DLPI and UDP via BSD Sockets.[1] Netperf provides sockets, TCP, SCTP, DLPI and UDP via BSD Sockets. Netperf provides
a number of predefined tests e.g. to measure bulk (unidirectional) a number of predefined tests e.g. to measure bulk (unidirectional)
data transfer or request response performance (add reference to Wiki, data transfer or request response performance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netperf). Netperf-wrapper is a Python http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netperf). Netperf-wrapper is a Python
script that runs multiple simultaneous netperf instances and script that runs multiple simultaneous netperf instances and
aggregate the results. aggregate the results.
Flowgrind is a distributed network performance measurement tool. uperf uses a description (or model) of an application mixture and
Using the flowgrind controller, tests can be setup between hosts the tool generates the load according to the model desciptor. uperf
running flowgrind. For the purposes of this traffic management is more flexible than Netperf in it's ability to generate request
testing framework, the key benefit of Flowgrind is that it can / response application behavior within a single TCP connection. The
emulate non-bulk transfer applications such as HTTP, Email, etc. application model descriptor can be based off of empirical data, but
Traffic generation options include the request size, response size, currently the import of packet captures is not directly supported.
inter-request gap, and response time gap. Additionally, various
distribution types are supported including constant, normal,
exponential, pareto, etc.
Both netperf-wrapper and flowgrind's traffic generation parameters Tmix is another application traffic emulation tool and uses packet
facilitate the emulation of the TCP test patterns which are captures directly to create the traffic profile. The packet trace is
discussed in Appendix B. 'reverse compiled' into a source-level characterization, called a
connection vector, of each TCP connection present in the trace. While
most widely used in ns2 simulation environment, TMix also runs on
Linux hosts.
Iperf, Netperf-wrapper, uperf, and Tmix's traffic generation
parameters facilitate the emulation of the TCP test patterns which
are discussed in Appendix B.
Appendix B: Stateful TCP Test Patterns Appendix B: Stateful TCP Test Patterns
This framework recommends at a minimum the following TCP test patterns This framework recommends at a minimum the following TCP test
since they are representative of real world application traffic (section patterns since they are representative of real world application
5.2.1 describes some methods to derive other application-based TCP test traffic (section 5.2.1 describes some methods to derive other
patterns). application-based TCP test patterns).
- Bulk Transfer: generate concurrent TCP connections whose aggregate - Bulk Transfer: generate concurrent TCP connections whose aggregate
number of in-flight data bytes would fill the BDP. Guidelines number of in-flight data bytes would fill the BDP. Guidelines
from RFC 6349 are used to create this TCP traffic pattern. from RFC 6349 are used to create this TCP traffic pattern.
- Micro Burst: generate precise burst patterns within a single or multiple - Micro Burst: generate precise burst patterns within a single or
TCP connections(s). The idea is for TCP to establish equilibrium and then multiple TCP connections(s). The idea is for TCP to establish
burst application bytes at defined sizes. The test tool must allow the equilibrium and then burst application bytes at defined sizes. The
burst size and burst time interval to be configurable. test tool must allow the burst size and burst time interval to be
configurable.
- Web Site Patterns: The HTTP traffic model from "3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" - Web Site Patterns: The HTTP traffic model from
is referenced (Table 4.1.3.2-1) to develop these TCP test patterns. In "3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" is referenced (Table 4.1.3.2.1) to develop
summary, the HTTP traffic model consists of the following parameters: these TCP test patterns. In summary, the HTTP traffic model consists
of the following parameters:
- Main object size (Sm) - Main object size (Sm)
- Embedded object size (Se) - Embedded object size (Se)
- Number of embedded objects per page (Nd) - Number of embedded objects per page (Nd)
- Client processing time (Tcp) - Client processing time (Tcp)
- Server processing time (Tsp) - Server processing time (Tsp)
Web site test patterns are illustrated with the following examples: Web site test patterns are illustrated with the following examples:
- Simple Web Site: mimic the request / response and object download - Simple Web Site: mimic the request / response and object
behavior of a basic web site (small company). download behavior of a basic web site (small company).
- Complex Web Site: mimic the request / response and object download - Complex Web Site: mimic the request / response and object
behavior of a complex web site (ecommerce site). download behavior of a complex web site (ecommerce site).
Referencing the HTTP traffic model parameters , the following table Referencing the HTTP traffic model parameters , the following table
was derived (by analysis and experimentation) for Simple and Complex was derived (by analysis and experimentation) for Simple and Complex
Web site TCP test patterns: Web site TCP test patterns:
Simple Complex Simple Complex
Parameter Web Site Web Site Parameter Web Site Web Site
----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
Main object Ave. = 10KB Ave. = 300KB Main object Ave. = 10KB Ave. = 300KB
size (Sm) Min. = 100B Min. = 50KB size (Sm) Min. = 100B Min. = 50KB
skipping to change at page 35, line 4 skipping to change at page 34, line 41
Client processing Ave. = 3s Ave. = 10s Client processing Ave. = 3s Ave. = 10s
time (Tcp)* Min. = 1s Min. = 3s time (Tcp)* Min. = 1s Min. = 3s
Max. = 10s Max. = 30s Max. = 10s Max. = 30s
Server processing Ave. = 5s Ave. = 8s Server processing Ave. = 5s Ave. = 8s
time (Tsp)* Min. = 1s Min. = 2s time (Tsp)* Min. = 1s Min. = 2s
Max. = 15s Max. = 30s Max. = 15s Max. = 30s
* The client and server processing time is distributed across the * The client and server processing time is distributed across the
transmission / receipt of all of the main and embedded objects transmission / receipt of all of the main and embedded objects
To be clear, the parameters in this table are reasonable guidelines To be clear, the parameters in this table are reasonable guidelines
for the TCP test pattern traffic generation. The test tool can use for the TCP test pattern traffic generation. The test tool can use
fixed parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for fixed parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for
more complex tests. However, the test pattern must be repeatable to more complex tests. However, the test pattern must be repeatable to
ensure that the benchmark results can be reliably compared. ensure that the benchmark results can be reliably compared.
- Inter-active Patterns: While Web site patterns are inter-active - Inter-active Patterns: While Web site patterns are inter-active
to a degree, they mainly emulate the downloading of various to a degree, they mainly emulate the downloading of various
complexity web sites. Inter-active patterns are more chatty in nature complexity web sites. Inter-active patterns are more chatty in
since there is alot of user interaction with the servers. Examples nature since there is alot of user interaction with the servers.
include business applications such as Peoplesoft, Oracle and consumer Examples include business applications such as Peoplesoft, Oracle
applications such as Facebook, IM, etc. For the inter-active patterns, and consumer applications such as Facebook, IM, etc. For the inter-
the packet capture technique was used to characterize some business active patterns, the packet capture technique was used to
applications and also the email application. characterize some business applications and also the email
application.
In summary, an inter-active application can be described by the following In summary, an inter-active application can be described by the
parameters: following parameters:
- Client message size (Scm) - Client message size (Scm)
- Number of Client messages (Nc) - Number of Client messages (Nc)
- Server response size (Srs) - Server response size (Srs)
- Number of server messages (Ns) - Number of server messages (Ns)
- Client processing time (Tcp) - Client processing time (Tcp)
- Server processing Time (Tsp) - Server processing Time (Tsp)
- File size upload (Su)* - File size upload (Su)*
- File size download (Sd)* - File size download (Sd)*
* The file size parameters account for attachments uploaded or downloaded * The file size parameters account for attachments uploaded or
and may not be present in all inter-active applications downloaded and may not be present in all inter-active applications
Again using packet capture as a means to characterize, the following Again using packet capture as a means to characterize, the following
table reflects the guidelines for Simple Business Application, Complex table reflects the guidelines for Simple Business Application,
Business Application, eCommerce, and Email Send / Receive: Complex Business Application, eCommerce, and Email Send / Receive:
Simple Complex Simple Complex
Parameter Biz. App. Biz. App eCommerce* Email Parameter Biz. App. Biz. App eCommerce* Email
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Client message Ave. = 450B Ave. = 2KB Ave. = 1KB Ave. = 200B Client message Ave. = 450B Ave. = 2KB Ave. = 1KB Ave. = 200B
size (Scm) Min. = 100B Min. = 500B Min. = 100B Min. = 100B size (Scm) Min. = 100B Min. = 500B Min. = 100B Min. = 100B
Max. = 1.5KB Max. = 100KB Max. = 50KB Max. = 1KB Max. = 1.5KB Max. = 100KB Max. = 50KB Max. = 1KB
Number of client Ave. = 10 Ave. = 100 Ave. = 20 Ave. = 10 Number of client Ave. = 10 Ave. = 100 Ave. = 20 Ave. = 10
messages (Nc) Min. = 5 Min. = 50 Min. = 10 Min. = 5 messages (Nc) Min. = 5 Min. = 50 Min. = 10 Min. = 5
skipping to change at page 35, line 72 skipping to change at page 36, line 5
Max. = 5s Max. = 20s Max. = 10s Max. = 15s Max. = 5s Max. = 20s Max. = 10s Max. = 15s
File size Ave. = 50KB Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A Ave. = 100KB File size Ave. = 50KB Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A Ave. = 100KB
upload (Su) Min. = 2KB Min. = 10KB Min. = N/A Min. = 20KB upload (Su) Min. = 2KB Min. = 10KB Min. = N/A Min. = 20KB
Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB Max. = N/A Max. = 10MB Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB Max. = N/A Max. = 10MB
File size Ave. = 50KB Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A Ave. = 100KB File size Ave. = 50KB Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A Ave. = 100KB
download (Sd) Min. = 2KB Min. = 10KB Min. = N/A Min. = 20KB download (Sd) Min. = 2KB Min. = 10KB Min. = N/A Min. = 20KB
Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB Max. = N/A Max. = 10MB Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB Max. = N/A Max. = 10MB
* eCommerce used a combination of packet capture techniques and * eCommerce used a combination of packet capture techniques and
reference traffic flows from "SPECweb2009" (need proper reference) reference traffic flows from "SPECweb2009" (need proper reference)
** The client and server processing time is distributed across the ** The client and server processing time is distributed across the
transmission / receipt of all of messages. Client processing time transmission / receipt of all of messages. Client processing time
consists mainly of the delay between user interactions (not machine consists mainly of the delay between user interactions (not machine
processing). processing).
And again, the parameters in this table are the guidelines for the And again, the parameters in this table are the guidelines for the
TCP test pattern traffic generation. The test tool can use fixed TCP test pattern traffic generation. The test tool can use fixed
parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for more parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for more
complex tests. However, the test pattern must be repeatable to ensure complex tests. However, the test pattern must be repeatable to
that the benchmark results can be reliably compared. ensure that the benchmark results can be reliably compared.
- SMB/CIFS File Copy: mimic a network file copy, both read and write. - SMB/CIFS File Copy: mimic a network file copy, both read and write.
As opposed to FTP which is a bulk transfer and is only flow controlled As opposed to FTP which is a bulk transfer and is only flow
via TCP, SMB/CIFS divides a file into application blocks and utilizes controlled via TCP, SMB/CIFS divides a file into application blocks
application level handshaking in addition to TCP flow control. and utilizes application level handshaking in addition to
TCP flow control.
In summary, an SMB/CIFS file copy can be described by the following In summary, an SMB/CIFS file copy can be described by the following
parameters: parameters:
- Client message size (Scm) - Client message size (Scm)
- Number of client messages (Nc) - Number of client messages (Nc)
- Server response size (Srs) - Server response size (Srs)
- Number of Server messages (Ns) - Number of Server messages (Ns)
- Client processing time (Tcp) - Client processing time (Tcp)
- Server processing time (Tsp) - Server processing time (Tsp)
- Block size (Sb) - Block size (Sb)
The client and server messages are SMB control messages. The Block size The client and server messages are SMB control messages. The Block
is the data portion of th file transfer. size is the data portion of th file transfer.
Again using packet capture as a means to characterize the following Again using packet capture as a means to characterize the following
table reflects the guidelines for SMB/CIFS file copy: table reflects the guidelines for SMB/CIFS file copy:
SMB SMB
Parameter File Copy Parameter File Copy
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Client message Ave. = 450B Client message Ave. = 450B
size (Scm) Min. = 100B size (Scm) Min. = 100B
Max. = 1.5KB Max. = 1.5KB
skipping to change at page 36, line 50 skipping to change at page 37, line 4
Max. = 25 Max. = 25
Client processing Ave. = 1ms Client processing Ave. = 1ms
time (Tcp) Min. = 0.5ms time (Tcp) Min. = 0.5ms
Max. = 2 Max. = 2
Server response Ave. = 2KB Server response Ave. = 2KB
size (Srs) Min. = 500B size (Srs) Min. = 500B
Max. = 100KB Max. = 100KB
Number of server Ave. = 10 Number of server Ave. = 10
messages (Ns) Min. = 10 messages (Ns) Min. = 10
Max. = 200 Max. = 200
Server processing Ave. = 1ms
Server processing Ave. = 1ms
time (Tsp) Min. = 0.5ms time (Tsp) Min. = 0.5ms
Max. = 2ms Max. = 2ms
Block Ave. = N/A Block Ave. = N/A
Size (Sb)* Min. = 16KB Size (Sb)* Min. = 16KB
Max. = 128KB Max. = 128KB
*Depending upon the tested file size, the block size will be *Depending upon the tested file size, the block size will be
transferred n number of times to complete the example. An example transferred n number of times to complete the example. An example
would be a 10 MB file test and 64KB block size. In this case 160 would be a 10 MB file test and 64KB block size. In this case 160
blocks would be transferred after the control channel is opened blocks would be transferred after the control channel is opened
between the client and server. between the client and server.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of the
Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
performed on devices or systems connected to production networks.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
9. Conclusions This document does not REQUIRE an IANA registration for ports
dedicated to the TCP testing described in this document.
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Al Morton for his continuous review and
invaluable input to the document. We would also like to thank
Scott Bradnor for providing guidance early in the drafts
conception in the area of benchmarking scope of traffic management
functions. Additionally, we would like to thank Tim Copley for this
original input and David Taht, Gory Erg, Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen for
their review and input for the AQM group. And for the formal reviews
of this document, we would like to thank Gilles Forget,
Vijay Gurbani, Reinhard Schrage, and Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[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 [RFC1242] S. Bradnor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Interconnection Devices," RFC 1242 July 1991
Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
[RFC5481] A. Morton etal., "Packet Delay Variation Applicability
Statement," RFC 5481 March 2009
[RFC2680] G. Almes et al., "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM," [RFC2680] G. Almes et al., "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,"
RFC 2680 September 1999 RFC 2680 September 1999
[RFC2697] J. Heinanen et al., "A Single Rate Three Color Marker," [RFC2697] J. Heinanen et al., "A Single Rate Three Color Marker,"
RFC 2697, September 1999 RFC 2697, September 1999
[RFC2698] J. Heinanen et al., "A Two Rate Three Color Marker, " [RFC2698] J. Heinanen et al., "A Two Rate Three Color Marker, "
RFC 2698, September 1999 RFC 2698, September 1999
skipping to change at page 37, line 43 skipping to change at page 38, line 32
October 2006 October 2006
[RFC4737] A. Morton et al., "Packet Reordering Metrics," RFC 4737, [RFC4737] A. Morton et al., "Packet Reordering Metrics," RFC 4737,
November 2006 November 2006
[RFC6349] Barry Constantine et al., "Framework for TCP Throughput [RFC6349] Barry Constantine et al., "Framework for TCP Throughput
Testing," RFC 6349, August 2011 Testing," RFC 6349, August 2011
[AQM-RECO] Fred Baker et al., "IETF Recommendations Regarding [AQM-RECO] Fred Baker et al., "IETF Recommendations Regarding
Active Queue Management," August 2014, Active Queue Management," August 2014,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-
recommendation/
[MEF-10.2] "MEF 10.2: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2," October 2009, [MEF-10.2] "MEF 10.2: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2," October
http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/technical- 2009, http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/
specifications/MEF10.2.pdf technical-specifications/MEF10.2.pdf
[MEF-12.1] "MEF 12.1: Carrier Ethernet Network Architecture Framework -- [MEF-12.1] "MEF 12.1: Carrier Ethernet Network Architecture
Part 2: Ethernet Services Layer - Base Elements," April 2010, Framework --
https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specifications Part 2: Ethernet Services Layer - Base Elements," April
/PDF/MEF12.1.pdf 2010, https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical
_Specifications/PDF/MEF12.1.pdf
[MEF-26] "MEF 26: External Network Network Interface (ENNI) - Phase 1," [MEF-26] "MEF 26: External Network Network Interface (ENNI) -
January 2010, http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents Phase 1,"January 2010, http://www.metroethernetforum.org
/technical-specifications/MEF26.pdf /PDF_Documents/technical-specifications/MEF26.pdf
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
11. Acknowledgments Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses
Barry Constantine Barry Constantine
JDSU, Test and Measurement Division JDSU, Test and Measurement Division
Germantown, MD 20876-7100, USA Germantown, MD 20876-7100, USA
Phone: +1 240 404 2227 Phone: +1 240 404 2227
Email: barry.constantine@jdsu.com Email: barry.constantine@jdsu.com
Timothy Copley Ram Krishnan
Level 3 Communications
14605 S 50th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85044
Email: Timothy.copley@level3.com
Ram Krishnan
Brocade Communications Brocade Communications
San Jose, 95134, USA San Jose, 95134, USA
Phone: +001-408-406-7890 Phone: +001-408-406-7890
Email: ramk@brocade.com Email: ramk@brocade.com
 End of changes. 155 change blocks. 
462 lines changed or deleted 567 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/