One document matched: draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00.txt
Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational February 14, 2014
Expires: August 18, 2014
Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their
Infrastructure
draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00
Abstract
BMWG has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of
dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions.
This memo investigates additional considerations when network
functions are virtualized and performed in commodity off-the-shelf
hardware.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Round-trip Loss February 2014
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. New Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Hardware Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Testing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
BMWG has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of
dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. The
Black-box Benchmarks of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and
others have served our industry for many years. [RFC1242] and
[RFC2544] are the cornerstones of the work.
A set of development goals is to reduce costs while increasing
flexibility of network devices, and drastically accelerate their
deployment. Network Function Virtualization has the promise to
achieve these goals, and therefore has garnered much attention. It
now seems certain that some network functions will be virtualized
following the success of cloud computing and virtual desktops
supported by sufficient network path capacity, performance,and
widespread deployment; many of the same techniques will be brought to
bear.
See http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv for
more background, for example, the white papers there may be a useful
starting place.
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Round-trip Loss February 2014
2. Scope
This memo investigates additional methodological considerations
necessary when benchmarking Virtual Network Functions (VNF)
instantiated and hosted in commodity off-the-shelf hardware (COTS).
A clearly related goal: the benchmarks for the capacity of COTS to
host a plurality of VNF instances should be investigated.
A non-goal is any overlap with traditional computer benchmark
development and their specific metrics (SPECmark suites such as
SPECCPU).
3. New Considerations
This section lists the new considerations which must be addressed to
benchmark VNF(s) and their supporting infrastructure.
3.1. Hardware Components
New Hardware devices will become part of the test set-up.
1. High volume server platforms (COTS, possibly with virtual
technology enhancements).
2. Large capacity, and high speed, high reliability storage systems.
3. Network Interface ports specially designed for efficient service
of many virtual NICs.
4. High capacity Ethernet Switches.
Labs conducting comparisons of different VNFs may be able to use the
same hardware platform over many studies, until the steady march of
innovations overtakes their capabilities (as happens with the lab's
traffic generation and testing devices today).
3.2. Configuration Parameters
It will be necessary to configure and document the settings for the
entire COTS platform, including:
o number of server blades (shelf occupation)
o CPUs
o caches
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Round-trip Loss February 2014
o storage system
o I/O
as well as configurations that support the devices which host the VNF
itself:
o Hypervisor
o Virtual Machine
o Infrastructure Virtual Network
and finally, the VNF itself, with items such as:
o specific function being implemented in VNF
o number of VNF components in the service function chain
o number of physical interfaces and links transited in the service
function chain
3.3. Testing Strategies
The concept of characterizing performance at capacity limits may
change. For example:
1. It may be more representative of system capacity to characterize
the case where Virtual Machines (VM, hosting the VNF) are
operating at 50% Utilization, and therefore sharing the "real"
processing power across many VMs.
2. Another important case stems from the need for partitioning
functions. A noisy neighbor (VM hosting a VNF in an infinite
loop) would ideally be isolated and the performance of other VMs
would continue according to their specifications.
3. System errors will likely occur as transients, implying a
distribution of performance characteristics with a long tail
(like latency), leading to the need for longer-term tests of each
set of configuration and test parameters.
4. The desire for Elasticity and flexibility among network functions
will include tests where there is constant flux in the VM
instances. Requests for new VMs and Releases for VMs hosting
VNFs no longer needed would be an normal operational condition.
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Round-trip Loss February 2014
5. All physical things can fail, and benchmarking efforts can also
examine recovery aided by the virtual architecture with different
approaches to resiliency.
4. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above.
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.
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.
5. IANA Considerations
No IANA Action is requested at this time.
6. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges an encouraging conversation on this topic
with Mukhtiar Shaikh and Ramki Krishnan in November 2013.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998.
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Round-trip Loss February 2014
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, April
2011.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011.
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Round-trip Loss February 2014
Author's Address
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Morton Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:45:35 |