1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Tahhan
Request for Comments: 8204 B. O'Mahony
Category: Informational Intel
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Morton
AT&T Labs
September 2017
<span class="h1">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)</span>
Abstract
This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on Virtual Switch Performance (VSPERF), particularly
in the areas of test setups and configuration parameters for the
system under test. This project has extended the current and
completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in the
IETF and references existing literature. The Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted laboratory
characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo describes the
additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented on
general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the
"telco" infrastructure.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8204">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8204</a>.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Flow Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Benchmarks Using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. VSPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Accuracy of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-5.7">5.7</a>. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-5.8">5.8</a>. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-5.9">5.9</a>. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-22">22</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-24">24</a>
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (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. Now, Network Function
Virtualization (NFV) has the goal of transforming how internetwork
functions are implemented and therefore has garnered much attention.
A virtual switch (vSwitch) is an important aspect of the NFV
infrastructure; it provides connectivity between and among physical
network functions and virtual network functions. As a result, there
are many vSwitch benchmarking efforts but few specifications to guide
the many new test design choices. This is a complex problem and an
industry-wide work in progress. In the future, several of BMWG's
fundamental specifications will likely be updated as more testing
experience helps to form consensus around new methodologies, and BMWG
should continue to collaborate with all organizations that share the
same goal.
This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on Virtual Switch Performance (VSPERF)
characterization through the Danube 3.0 (fourth) release [<a href="#ref-DanubeRel">DanubeRel</a>]
to the chartered work of the BMWG (with stable references to their
test descriptions). This project has extended the current and
completed work of the BMWG IETF and references existing literature.
For example, the most often referenced RFC is [<a href="./rfc2544" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"">RFC2544</a>] (which
depends on [<a href="./rfc1242" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices"">RFC1242</a>]), so the foundation of the benchmarking work in
OPNFV is common and strong. The recommended extensions are
specifically in the areas of test setups and configuration parameters
for the system under test.
See [<a href="#ref-VSPERFhome">VSPERFhome</a>] for more background and the OPNFV website for
general information [<a href="#ref-OPNFV" title=""OPNFV"">OPNFV</a>].
The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open
source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on
existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud computing. There are
many ways in which telco requirements have different emphasis on
performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for
and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Abbreviations</span>
For the purposes of this document, the following abbreviations apply:
ACK Acknowledge
ACPI Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
BIOS Basic Input Output System
BMWG Benchmarking Methodology Working Group
CPDP Control Plane Data Plane
CPU Central Processing Unit
DIMM Dual In-line Memory Module
DPDK Data Plane Development Kit
DUT Device Under Test
GRUB Grand Unified Bootloader
ID Identification
IMIX Internet Mix
IP Internet Protocol
IPPM IP Performance Metrics
LAN Local Area Network
LTD Level Test Design
NFV Network Functions Virtualization
NIC Network Interface Card
NUMA Non-uniform Memory Access
OPNFV Open Platform for NFV
OS Operating System
PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect
PDV Packet Delay Variation
SR/IOV Single Root / Input Output Virtualization
SUT System Under Test
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
TSO TCP Segment Offload
UDP User Datagram Protocol
VM Virtual Machine
VNF Virtualised Network Function
VSPERF OPNFV vSwitch Performance Project
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Scope</span>
The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to describe key aspects
of vSwitch benchmarking, particularly in the areas of test setups and
configuration parameters for the system under test, and extend the
body of extensive BMWG literature and experience. Initial feedback
indicates that many of these extensions may be applicable beyond this
memo's current scope (to hardware switches in the NFV infrastructure
and to virtual routers, for example). Additionally, this memo serves
as a vehicle to include more detail and relevant commentary from BMWG
and other open source communities under BMWG's chartered work to
characterize the NFV infrastructure.
The benchmarking covered in this memo should be applicable to many
types of vSwitches and remain vSwitch agnostic to a great degree.
There has been no attempt to track and test all features of any
specific vSwitch implementation.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Benchmarking Considerations</span>
This section highlights some specific considerations (from [<a href="./rfc8172" title=""Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure"">RFC8172</a>])
related to benchmarks for virtual switches. The OPNFV project is
sharing its present view on these areas as they develop their
specifications in the Level Test Design (LTD) document as defined by
[<a href="#ref-IEEE829" title=""IEEE Standard for Software and System Test Documentation"">IEEE829</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Comparison with Physical Network Functions</span>
To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
BMWG has developed specifications for many physical network
functions. The BMWG has recommended reusing existing benchmarks and
methods in [<a href="./rfc8172" title=""Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure"">RFC8172</a>], and the OPNFV LTD expands on them as described
here. A key configuration aspect for vSwitches is the number of
parallel CPU cores required to achieve comparable performance with a
given physical device or whether some limit of scale will be reached
before the vSwitch can achieve the comparable performance level.
It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application
running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, cache utilization, and memory
footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of
internetworking functions. However, internally measured metrics such
as these are not benchmarks; they may be useful for the audience
(e.g., operations) to know and may also be useful if there is a
problem encountered during testing.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
Benchmark comparability between virtual and physical/hardware
implementations of equivalent functions will likely place more
detailed and exact requirements on the "testing systems" (in terms of
stream generation, algorithms to search for maximum values, and their
configurations). This is another area for standards development to
appreciate; however, this is a topic for a future document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks</span>
External observations remain essential as the basis for benchmarks.
Internal observations with a fixed specification and interpretation
will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations
procedures when the technology is deployed.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. New Configuration Parameters</span>
A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying
to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When
benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch, there are many factors
that can affect the consistency of results; one key factor is
matching the various hardware and software details of the SUT. This
section lists some of the many new parameters that this project
believes are critical to report in order to achieve repeatability.
It has been the goal of the project to produce repeatable results,
and a large set of the parameters believed to be critical is provided
so that the benchmarking community can better appreciate the increase
in configuration complexity inherent in this work. The parameter set
below is assumed sufficient for the infrastructure in use by the
VSPERF project to obtain repeatable results from test to test.
Hardware details (platform, processor, memory, and network)
including:
o BIOS version, release date, and any configurations that were
modified
o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
package, OS, etc.)
o CPU microcode level
o Number of enabled cores
o Number of cores used for the test
o Memory information (type and size)
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the
same as dual rank) in size, frequency, and slot locations
o Number of physical NICs and their details (manufacturer, versions,
type, and the PCI slot they are plugged into)
o NIC interrupt configuration (and any special features in use)
o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ACK option,
etc.)
Software details including:
o OS RunLevel
o OS version (for host and VNF)
o Kernel version (for host and VNF)
o GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)
o Hypervisor details (type and version)
o Selected vSwitch, version number, or commit ID used
o vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterized
o Memory allocation to the vSwitch
o Which NUMA node it is using and how many memory channels
o DPDK or any other software dependency version number or commit ID
used
o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugepages/elsewhere
o VM storage type - snapshot, independent persistent, independent
non-persistent
o Number of VMs
o Number of virtual NICs (vNICs) - versions, type, and driver
o Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host
o Number of vNICs and their interrupt configurations
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
o Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch
itself) on the host
o Details of resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/
Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
(taskset).
Test traffic information:
o Test duration
o Number of flows
o Traffic type - UDP, TCP, and others
o Frame Sizes - fixed or IMIX [<a href="./rfc6985" title=""IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet Sizes for Additional Testing"">RFC6985</a>] (note that with
[<a href="#ref-IEEE802.1ac">IEEE802.1ac</a>], frames may be longer than 1500 bytes and up to 2000
bytes)
o Deployment Scenario - defines the communications path in the SUT
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Flow Classification</span>
Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and matching
particular packet or frame header information, or by matching packets
based on the input ports. Thus, a flow can be thought of as a
sequence of packets that have the same set of header field values or
have arrived on the same physical or logical port. Performance
results can vary based on the parameters the vSwitch uses to match
for a flow. The recommended flow classification parameters for any
vSwitch performance tests are: the input port (physical or logical),
the source MAC address, the destination MAC address, the source IP
address, the destination IP address, and the Ethernet protocol type
field (although classification may take place on other fields, such
as source and destination transport port numbers). It is essential
to increase the flow timeout time on a vSwitch before conducting any
performance tests that do not intend to measure the flow setup time
(see <a href="./rfc2889#section-3">Section 3 of [RFC2889]</a>). Normally, the first packet of a
particular stream will install the flow in the virtual switch, which
introduces additional latency; subsequent packets of the same flow
are not subject to this latency if the flow is already installed on
the vSwitch.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5" href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Benchmarks Using Baselines with Resource Isolation</span>
This outline describes the measurement of baselines with isolated
resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
time.
1. Baselines:
* Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a
vSwitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of
platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance
for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and
latency).
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
| | | | |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | NIC | | |
+---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Benchmark Platform Forwarding Capability
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
* Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct connectivity
(vSwitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 hours (serves
as a means of VNF validation and a means to obtain the base
performance for the VNF in terms of its maximum forwarding
rate and latency). The metrics gathered from this test will
serve as a key comparison point for vSwitch bypass
technologies performance and vSwitch performance.
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ __ |
| +------------------------------------------+ | | |
| | | | Host/ |
| | VNF | | Guest |
| | | | | |
| +------------------------------------------+ | __| |
| | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | NIC | | |
+---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Benchmark VNF Forwarding Capability
* Benchmarking with isolated resources alone and with other
resources (both hardware and software) disabled; for example,
vSwitch and VM are SUT.
* Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, thus leaving some
resources unused.
* Benchmarking with isolated resources and all resources
occupied.
2. Next Steps:
* Limited sharing
* Production scenarios
* Stressful scenarios
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. VSPERF Specification Summary</span>
The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance
tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the
pre-existing specifications developed by the BMWG to test the
performance of physical switches. These specifications include:
o Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
[<a href="./rfc2544" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"">RFC2544</a>]
o Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching [<a href="./rfc2889" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices"">RFC2889</a>]
o Device Reset Characterization [<a href="./rfc6201" title=""Device Reset Characterization"">RFC6201</a>]
o Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement [<a href="./rfc5481" title=""Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement"">RFC5481</a>]
The two most recent RFCs above ([<a href="./rfc6201" title=""Device Reset Characterization"">RFC6201</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5481" title=""Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement"">RFC5481</a>]) are being
applied in benchmarking for the first time and represent a
development challenge for test equipment developers. Fortunately,
many members of the testing system community have engaged on the
VSPERF project, including an open source test system.
In addition to this, the LTD also reuses the terminology defined by:
o Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices [<a href="./rfc2285" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices"">RFC2285</a>]
It is recommended that these references be included in future
benchmarking specifications:
o Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking [<a href="./rfc3918" title=""Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking"">RFC3918</a>]
o Packet Reordering Metrics [<a href="./rfc4737" title=""Packet Reordering Metrics"">RFC4737</a>]
As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
characteristics of throughput and latency remain important when the
switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
specification.
When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
functions, additional performance metrics are needed. In this case,
the project specifications have referenced metrics from the IETF IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the latency
test described in [<a href="./rfc2544" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"">RFC2544</a>] is replaced by measurement of a metric
derived from IPPM's [<a href="./rfc7679" title=""A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)"">RFC7679</a>], where a set of statistical summaries
will be provided (mean, max, min, and percentiles). Further metrics
planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as defined
by [<a href="./rfc5481" title=""Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement"">RFC5481</a>], reordering, burst behaviour, DUT availability, DUT
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
capacity, and packet loss in long-term testing at the throughput
level, where some low level of background loss may be present and
characterized.
Tests have been designed to collect the metrics below:
o Throughput tests are designed to measure the maximum forwarding
rate (in frames per second, fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a
constant load (as defined by [<a href="./rfc1242" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices"">RFC1242</a>]) without traffic loss.
o Packet and frame-delay distribution tests are designed to measure
the average minimum and maximum packet (and/or frame) delay for
constant loads.
o Packet delay tests are designed to understand latency distribution
for different packet sizes and to uncover outliers over an
extended test run.
o Scalability tests are designed to understand how the virtual
switch performs with an increasing number of flows, number of
active ports, configuration complexity of the forwarding logic,
etc.
o Stream performance tests (with TCP or UDP) are designed to measure
bulk data transfer performance, i.e., how fast systems can send
and receive data through the switch.
o Control-path and data-path coupling tests are designed to
understand how closely the data path and the control path are
coupled, as well as the effect of this coupling on the performance
of the DUT (for example, delay of the initial packet of a flow).
o CPU and memory consumption tests are designed to understand the
virtual switch's footprint on the system and are conducted as
auxiliary measurements with the benchmarks above. They include
CPU utilization, cache utilization, and memory footprint.
o The so-called "soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours but
only long enough to determine that stability issues exist when
found; there is no requirement to continue a test when a DUT
exhibits instability over time). The key performance
characteristics and benchmarks for a DUT are determined (using
short duration tests) prior to conducting soak tests. The purpose
of soak tests is to capture transient changes in performance,
which may occur due to infrequent processes, memory leaks, or the
low-probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
stability of the DUT is the paramount consideration, so
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
testing, and this results in use of frame rate metrics [<a href="./rfc2889" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices"">RFC2889</a>]
instead of throughput [<a href="./rfc2544" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"">RFC2544</a>] (which requires stopping traffic
to allow time for all traffic to exit internal queues), for
example.
Additional test specification development should include:
o Request/response performance tests (with TCP or UDP), which
measure the transaction rate through the switch.
o Noisy neighbor tests, in order to understand the effects of
resource sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.
o Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
requirements [<a href="#ref-IFA003" title=""Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV); Acceleration Technologies; vSwitch Benchmarking and Acceleration Specification"">IFA003</a>] on characterization of acceleration
technologies applied to vSwitches.
The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network
means that it is necessary to characterize the performance of a
vSwitch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios
under consideration are shown in the following figures:
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +--------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | v | | Host
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Port | vSwitch | PHY Port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to Physical Port
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| ^ : | |
| | | | | Guest
| : v | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Port 0| | Logical Port 1| | |
+---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v __
+---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
| | Logical Port 0| | Logical Port 1| | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| ^ : | |
| | | | | Host
| : v | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Port | vSwitch | PHY Port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to VNF to Virtual Switch to
Physical Port
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
__
+----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
| Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Application | | | | Application | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| ^ | | | ^ | | |
| | v | | | v | | Guests
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Ports | | | | Logical Ports | | |
| | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
+---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
^ : ^ :
| | | |
: v : v _
+---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
| | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
| | Logical Ports | | Logical Ports | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| ^ | ^ | | | Host
| | \-----------------/ v | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Ports | vSwitch | PHY Ports | | |
+---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to VNF to Virtual Switch to
VNF to Virtual Switch to Physical Port
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | | Guest
| : | |
| +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Port 0| | |
+---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
^
|
: __
+---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
| | Logical Port 0| | |
| +---------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | | Host
| : | |
| +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Port | vSwitch | |
+---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
^
|
:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to VNF
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| : | |
| | | | Guest
| v | |
| +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Port | | |
+-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
:
|
v __
+------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
| | Logical Port | | |
| +---------------+ | |
| : | |
| | | | Host
| v | |
| +--------------+ | |
| vSwitch | PHY Port | | |
+-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
:
|
v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: VNF to Virtual Switch to Physical Port
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
__
+----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
| Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Application | | | | Application | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | | | ^ | |
| v | | | | | Guests
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Ports | | | | Logical Ports | | |
| | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
+---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
: ^
| |
v : _
+---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
| | 1 | | 1 | | |
| | Logical Ports | | Logical Ports | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| | ^ | | Host
| \-----------------/ | |
| | |
| vSwitch | |
+------------------------------------------------+_|
Figure 8: VNF to Virtual Switch to VNF
A set of deployment scenario figures is available on the VSPERF "Test
Methodology" wiki page [<a href="#ref-TestTopo" title=""Test Methodology"">TestTopo</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. 3x3 Matrix Coverage</span>
This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
"3x3" matrix (introduced in [<a href="./rfc8172" title=""Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure"">RFC8172</a>]). Because the LTD
specification ID names are quite long, this section is organized into
lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all are occupied;
also, the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale metrics when
displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The current
version of the LTD specification is available; see [<a href="#ref-LTD" title=""VSPERF Level Test Design (LTD)"">LTD</a>].
The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
plane rather than the control plane.
A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" wiki page [<a href="#ref-LTDoverV" title=""LTD Test Spec Overview"">LTDoverV</a>].
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Speed of Activation</span>
o Activation.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.AddressLearningRate
o PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Accuracy of Activation</span>
o CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Reliability of Activation</span>
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.SystemRecoveryTime
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.ResetTime
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. Scale of Activation</span>
o Activation.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.AddressCachingCapacity
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5" href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>. Speed of Operation</span>
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.PacketLossRate
o Stress.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.0PacketLoss
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.PacketLossRateFrameModification
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.BackToBackFrames
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.MaxForwardingRate
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.ForwardPressure
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.BroadcastFrameForwarding
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.WorstN-BestN
o Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.PacketLossRatio
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6" href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>. Accuracy of Operation</span>
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.ErrorFramesFiltering
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.Profile
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7" href="#section-5.7">5.7</a>. Reliability of Operation</span>
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.Soak
o Throughput.<a href="./rfc2889">RFC2889</a>.SoakFrameModification
o PacketDelayVariation.<a href="./rfc3393">RFC3393</a>.Soak
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8" href="#section-5.8">5.8</a>. Scalability of Operation</span>
o Scalability.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.0PacketLoss
o MemoryBandwidth.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.0PacketLoss.Scalability
o Scalability.VNF.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.PacketLossProfile
o Scalability.VNF.<a href="./rfc2544">RFC2544</a>.PacketLossRatio
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9" href="#section-5.9">5.9</a>. Summary</span>
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| Activation | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| Operation | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| De-activation| | | | |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
(DUT/SUT) 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 and relies
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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2285">RFC2285</a>] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", <a href="./rfc2285">RFC 2285</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2285,
February 1998, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2544">RFC2544</a>] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", <a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2889">RFC2889</a>] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology
for LAN Switching Devices", <a href="./rfc2889">RFC 2889</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3918">RFC3918</a>] Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast
Benchmarking", <a href="./rfc3918">RFC 3918</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3918, October
2004, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918</a>>.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4737">RFC4737</a>] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", <a href="./rfc4737">RFC 4737</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6201">RFC6201</a>] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization", <a href="./rfc6201">RFC 6201</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6985">RFC6985</a>] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
Sizes for Additional Testing", <a href="./rfc6985">RFC 6985</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7679">RFC7679</a>] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, <a href="./rfc7679">RFC 7679</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-BENCHMARK-METHOD">BENCHMARK-METHOD</a>]
Huang, L., Ed., Rong, G., Ed., Mandeville, B., and B.
Hickman, "Benchmarking Methodology for Virtualization
Network Performance", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance-03">draft-huang-bmwg-</a>
<a href="./draft-huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance-03">virtual-network-performance-03</a>, July 2017.
[<a id="ref-DanubeRel">DanubeRel</a>]
OPNFV, "Danube",
<<a href="https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Danube">https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Danube</a>>.
[<a id="ref-IEEE802.1ac">IEEE802.1ac</a>]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Service
Definition", IEEE 802.1AC-2016,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.7875381, 2016,
<<a href="https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AC-2016.html">https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/</a>
<a href="https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AC-2016.html">standard/802.1AC-2016.html</a>>.
[<a id="ref-IEEE829">IEEE829</a>] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Software and System Test
Documentation", IEEE 829-2008,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4578383,
<<a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4578383/">http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4578383/</a>>.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
[<a id="ref-IFA003">IFA003</a>] ETSI, "Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV);
Acceleration Technologies; vSwitch Benchmarking and
Acceleration Specification", ETSI GS NFV-IFA 003 V2.1.1,
April 2016, <<a href="http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-IFA/001_099/003/02.01.01_60/gs_NFV-IFA003v020101p.pdf">http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/</a>
<a href="http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-IFA/001_099/003/02.01.01_60/gs_NFV-IFA003v020101p.pdf">NFV-IFA/001_099/003/02.01.01_60/</a>
<a href="http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-IFA/001_099/003/02.01.01_60/gs_NFV-IFA003v020101p.pdf">gs_NFV-IFA003v020101p.pdf</a>>.
[<a id="ref-LTD">LTD</a>] Tahhan, M., "VSPERF Level Test Design (LTD)",
<<a href="http://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-danube/submodules/vswitchperf/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.html#">http://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-danube/</a>
<a href="http://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-danube/submodules/vswitchperf/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.html#">submodules/vswitchperf/docs/testing/developer/</a>
<a href="http://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-danube/submodules/vswitchperf/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.html#">requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.html#</a>>.
[<a id="ref-LTDoverV">LTDoverV</a>] Morton, A., "LTD Test Spec Overview",
<<a href="https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/">https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/</a>
LTD+Test+Spec+Overview>.
[<a id="ref-OPNFV">OPNFV</a>] OPNFV, "OPNFV", <<a href="https://www.opnfv.org/">https://www.opnfv.org/</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC1242">RFC1242</a>] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5481">RFC5481</a>] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", <a href="./rfc5481">RFC 5481</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8172">RFC8172</a>] Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", <a href="./rfc8172">RFC 8172</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8172, July 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8172">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8172</a>>.
[<a id="ref-TestTopo">TestTopo</a>] Snyder, E., "Test Methodology",
<<a href="https://wiki.opnfv">https://wiki.opnfv</a>.org/display/vsperf/Test+Methodology>.
[<a id="ref-VSPERFhome">VSPERFhome</a>]
Tahhan, M., "VSPERF Home",
<<a href="https://wiki.opnfv">https://wiki.opnfv</a>.org/display/vsperf/VSperf+Home>.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
Christian Trautman, Benoit Claise, and others for their reviews.
We also acknowledge the early work in [<a href="#ref-BENCHMARK-METHOD">BENCHMARK-METHOD</a>] and useful
discussion with the authors.
<span class="grey">Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8204">RFC 8204</a> Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017</span>
Authors' Addresses
Maryam Tahhan
Intel
Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com
Billy O'Mahony
Intel
Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748
United States of America
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 24]
</pre>
|
