One document matched: draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="IMIX Genome">IMIX Genome: Specification of variable packet
sizes for additional testing</title>
<author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton">
<organization>AT&T Labs</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street>
<city>Middletown,</city>
<region>NJ</region>
<code>07748</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone>
<facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile>
<email>acmorton@att.com</email>
<uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date day="6" month="October" year="2010" />
<abstract>
<t>Benchmarking Methodologies have always relied on test conditions with
constant packet sizes, with the goal of understanding what network
device capability has been tested. Constant packets sizes differ
significantly from the conditions encountered in operational deployment,
and so additional tests are sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet
sizes, or "IMIX". The mixture of sizes a networking device will
encounter is highly variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited
for one networking device and deployment will not be appropriate for
another. However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be
asked to augment the fixed size tests. To address this need, and the
additional goal of repeatable test conditions, this draft proposes a way
to specify the exact repeating sequence of packet sizes from the usual
set of fixed sizes.</t>
</abstract>
<note title="Requirements Language">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
<t></t>
</note>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>This memo defines a method to unambiguously specify the sequence of
packet sizes used in a load test.</t>
<t>Benchmarking Methodologies <xref target="RFC2544"></xref> have always
relied on test conditions with constant packet sizes, with the goal of
understanding what network device capability has been tested. Tests with
the smallest size stress the header processing capacity, and tests with
the largest size stress the overall bit processing capacity. Tests with
sizes in-between may determine the transition between these two
capacities.</t>
<t>Constant packets sizes differ significantly from the conditions
encountered in operational deployment, and so additional tests are
sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet sizes. The set of sizes
used is often called an Internet Mix, or "IMIX" <xref
target="Spirent"></xref>, <xref target="IXIA"></xref>, <xref
target="Agilent"></xref>.</t>
<t>The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is highly
variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one networking
device and deployment will not be appropriate for another. However, the
mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to augment the
fixed size tests.</t>
<t>To address this need, and the additional goal of repeatable test
conditions, this draft proposes a way to specify the exact repeating
sequence of packet sizes from the usual set of fixed sizes: the IMIX
Genome.</t>
<section title="First Draft">
<t>In this first draft, some section are very short or to-be-provided
(TBP), and there are several questions identified for further
discussion.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Scope and Goals">
<t>This memo defines a method to unambiguously specify the sequence of
packet sizes that have been used in a load test, assuming that a
relevant mix of sizes is known to the tester and the length of the
repeating sequence is not very long (<30 packets).</t>
<t>The IMIX Genome will allow an exact sequence of packet sizes to be
communicated as a single-line name, resolving the current ambiguity with
results that simply refer to "IMIX".</t>
<t>While documentation of the exact sequence is ideal, the memo also
covers the case where the sequence of sizes is very long or may be
generated by a pseudo-random process.</t>
<t>It is a colossal non-goal to standardize one or more versions of the
IMIX. This topic has been discussed on many occasions on the
bmwg-list<xref target="IMIXonList"></xref>. The goal is to enable
customization with minimal constraints while fostering repeatable
testing once the fixed size testing is complete.</t>
</section>
<section title="Specification of the IMIX Genome">
<t>The IMIX Genome is specified in the following format:</t>
<t>IMIX - 123456...x</t>
<t>where each number is replaced by the letter corresponding to the
packet size of the packet at that position in the sequence. The
following table gives the letter encoding for the <xref
target="RFC2544"></xref> standard sizes (64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280,
and 1518 bytes).</t>
<texttable>
<preamble></preamble>
<ttcol>Size, bytes</ttcol>
<ttcol>Genome Code Letter</ttcol>
<c>64</c>
<c>a</c>
<c>128</c>
<c>b</c>
<c>256</c>
<c>c</c>
<c>512</c>
<c>d</c>
<c>1024</c>
<c>e</c>
<c>1280</c>
<c>f</c>
<c>1518</c>
<c>g</c>
<c>MTU ??</c>
<c>h</c>
<postamble></postamble>
</texttable>
<t>For example: a five packet sequence with sizes 64,64,64,1280,1518
would be designated:</t>
<t>IMIX - aaafg</t>
<t>While this approach allows some flexibility, there are also
constraints.</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Non-RFC2544 packet sizes would need to be approximated by those
available in the table.</t>
<t>The Genome for very long sequences can become undecipherable by
humans.</t>
<t>Whether h=MTU is useful/desirable is TBD.</t>
<t>Whether more tabulated packet sizes would be useful is TBD.</t>
</list>Some open issues with this format are:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>Multiple Source-Destination Address Pairs: is the IMIX sequence
applicable to each pair, across multiple pairs in sets, or across
all pairs?</t>
<t>Multiple Tester Ports:is the IMIX sequence applicable to each
port, across multiple ports in sets, or across all ports?</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Reporting Long or Pseudo-Random Packet Sequences">
<t>When the IMIX-Genome cannot be used (when the sheer length of the
sequence would make the genome unmanageable) or when the sequence is
designed to vary within some proportional constraints, a table is
necessary.</t>
<texttable>
<preamble></preamble>
<ttcol>IP Length</ttcol>
<ttcol>Percentage of Total</ttcol>
<ttcol>Other Length(s)</ttcol>
<c>64</c>
<c>23</c>
<c>82</c>
<c>128</c>
<c>67</c>
<c>146</c>
<c>1000</c>
<c>10</c>
<c>1018</c>
<postamble></postamble>
</texttable>
<t>Note that this approach also allows non-standard packet sizes, but
trades the short genome specification and ability to specify the exact
sequence for other flexibilities.</t>
<t>>>> Specification for psuedo-random size generation here?
<<<</t>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
<xref target="RFC2544"></xref>.</t>
<t>The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic
into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management
network.</t>
<t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This memo makes no requests of IANA, and hopes that IANA will leave
it alone as well.</t>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t></t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc ?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="Spirent">
<front>
<title>Test Methodology Journal: IMIX (Internet Mix) Journal</title>
<author fullname="Spirent" surname="">
<organization>http://gospirent.com/whitepaper/IMIX%20Test%20Methodolgy%20Journal.pdf</organization>
</author>
<date month=" " year="2006" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IXIA">
<front>
<title>Library: Test Plans</title>
<author fullname="IXIA">
<organization>http://www.ixiacom.com/library/test_plans/display?skey=testing_pppox</organization>
</author>
<date year="2010" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Agilent">
<front>
<title>The Journal of Internet Test Methodologies</title>
<author fullname="Agilent">
<organization>http://www.ixiacom.com/pdfs/test_plans/agilent_journal_of_internet_test_methodologies.pdf</organization>
</author>
<date year="2007" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IMIXonList">
<front>
<title>Discussion on IMIX</title>
<author fullname="Several">
<organization>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00691.html</organization>
</author>
<date year="2003" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 06:02:47 |