IETF BMWG Work Items

65th IETF MeetingDallas, TX

Tuesday 3/21/06

2

BENCHMARKING NETWORK LAYER TRAFFIC CONTROL MECHANISMS

draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-11.txtdraft-ietf-bmwg-dsmmeth-01.txt

Co-authors are Scott Poretsky of Reef Point, Jerry Perser of Veriwave,

Shobha Erramilli of Qnetworx, and Sumit Khurana of Telcordia

65th IETF Meeting – Dallas

3

Terminology

• draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-12.txt, Terminology for Benchmarking Network Layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

• Terminology completed WGLC• Required Co-Chair review prior to IESG

revealed a few issues that are now corrected– Clarify that delay is Forwarding Delay– Minor grammar and format issues– Only remaining outstanding issue is reference to Jitter

definition in obsoleted EF PHB RFC

• Ready for IESG review?

4

Methodology

• draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmmeth-01.txt, Methodology for Benchmarking Network Layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

• Applies many of the terms from the Terminology draft

• Test Cases:– Undifferentiated Response– Traffic Control Baseline Performance– Traffic Control Performance with Forwarding Congestion

5

Methodology – Baseline Test Cases

– Undifferentiated Response This is the baseline case with

– Multiple flows of SA/DA pairs and DSCP=0 (BE)

– Aggregate Offered Load is < Forwarding Capacity

– Traffic Control Baseline Performance This is the DSCP baseline case with

– Multiple flows of SA/DA pairs – Multiple DSCP values– Aggregate Offered Load is <

Forwarding Capacity

Expected Vector

| \/ --------- Offered Vector --------- | |<--------------------------------| | | | | | | DUT | | Tester| | | | | | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> | | | | Output Vector | | --------- ---------

6

Methodology – Congestion Test Cases

Expected Vector

| \/ --------- Offered Vector --------- | |<--------------------------------| | | |<--------------------------------| | | DUT | | Tester| | | | | | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> | | | | Output Vector | | --------- ---------

– Traffic Control Performance with Forwarding Congestion

This is the DSCP congestion case with Link Congestion

This is the DSCP baseline case with – Multiple flows of SA/DA pairs – Multiple DSCP values– Aggregate Offered Load is >

Forwarding Capacity

• ADD Test Case:– Traffic Control Performance with DSCP

Congestion No Link Congestion, but configured

DSCP Bandwidth is Exceeded

•Any input from WG?

Other test cases to add?

Any comments for methodology?

7

BENCHMARKING IGP DATA PLANE ROUTE CONVERGENCE

draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-10.txtdraft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-10.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-10.txt

Co-authors are Scott Poretsky of Reef Point and Brent Imhoff of Juniper Networks

65th IETF Meeting – Dallas

8

Current Status

1. draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-10.txt, Considerations for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

2. draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-10.txt, Terminology for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

3. draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-10.txt, Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

• -08 successfully completed 2nd WGLC• -09 issued to correct IETF NITs and incorporate comments for

formatting and clarification from Al Morton, Thomas Eriksson, and Timmons Player

• -10 incorporates comments from Cross-Area Reviewer, Sue Hares (last step for IESG review)

9

Changes for –09

• Clean-up Normative/Informative References• Clarify time measurement granularity is to milliseconds• Specify the packet size includes Payload, IP header, and Link-Layer header• Clarify last sentence of Convergence Packet loss discussion

• Fix figures with formatting error of the ‘Tester’• Change "this draft describes" to "this document describes"

• Make Consistent use of term Throughput (not Forwarding Rate)

• Found rfc3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 boilerplate (on line 696), which is fine, but *also* found rfc2026 Section 10.4C paragraph 1 boilerplate on line 42. It should be removed.

• Considerations (Applicability) missing form feeds• Some lines

– between 73 to 77 characters long (26 instances)– with control characters (52 instances)– With an extra space between words (5 instances)

10

Cross Area Review

• “Overall comment - very well done! Document is accurate and well thought out.”

• A few document edits/nits found and fixed in –10• One comment not incorporated:

– “It would be very good to replicate the equations used by cisco for ISIS or IGP convergence as an appendix:”LoC(p) = D + O + QSP + (h * F) + SPF(n) + RIB (p) + FIB(p) + DD + CRR

     D = link outage         0 = Originate OSPF       QSP = queue the ls updates       H*F = hops by flooding time       SPF(n) = SPF calculation time       RIB(p) = Routing RIB update time       FIB(p) - FIB update time       DD - Logical circuit update time       CRR = Recursive Lookup for BGP

• That equation, while being very useful, does not fit directly into this IGP work.  It includes parameters that are White Box measurements, BGP time, and factors for multiple hops.  Since it was suggested to be in an appendix I felt more comfortable excluding it from this single box, black box, IGP benchmark. 

11

Next Steps

• -10 Ready for IESG Review?

12

BENCHMARKING NETWORK DEVICES UNDER ACCLERATED STRESS

draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-08.txtdraft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-04.txt

(draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-ebgp-00.txtdraft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-opsec-00.txt)

Co-authors are Scott Poretsky of Reef Point and

Shankar Rao of Qwest

65th IETF Meeting – Dallas

13

Current Status

• Terminology– draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-07.txt, Terminology for Accelerated

Stress Benchmarking

– -08 changes incorporate action items from IETF 64 Specified the benchmark Recovery Time in micro-second resolution Added discussion that benchmarks span multiple dimensions and each

can be compared as the methodology user requires for the DUT application.

Renamed "degraded forwarding rate“ to "forwarding rate degradation"

• General Methodology– draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-05.txt, Methodology Guidelines for

Accelerated Stress Benchmarking

– -05 will incorporate action items from IETF 64.

– To be submitted by end of April.

14

Next Steps

• Is Terminology ready for WGLC?

• -05 Methodology will incorporate comments from IETF 64 and BMWG mailing list. To be posted by end of April.

15

Backup Slides

16

Control Plane30 BGP Peers (2 EBGP, 28 IBGP)28 OSPF Adjacencies400K route instances175K routes in FIBMPLS DisabledMulticast Protocols Disabled16K IPsec Tunnels32K IPsec SAs16K IKE SAsIPsec SA Lifetime = 8 hoursIKEv2 SA Lifetime = 8 hoursDPD Disabled

Example Stress Test – Configuration Set

Security Plane100K Stateful Firewall Sessions64K Firewall RulesDOS-Protection Enabled

Management Plane20 SSH Sessions4 RADIUS Servers with round-robinLogging enabledSysLog enabledStatistics enabled

Data PlaneInterfaces = qty 4 GigEData Rate = 4 GbpsPacket Size = 1500 bytesQoS Disabled

17

Startup Conditions (as configured on Tester*)• BGP and OSPF pre-configured and negotiation starts immediately• 50 IPsec Tunnels established per second• 1500 Stateful Firewall Sessions established per second Instability Conditions (as configured on Tester*)• 1 Interface Shut/No Shut per minute• 1 OSPF Interface Cost Change per hour• 100 IPsec Tunnels flapped (setup/teardown) per second • 20 IKEv2/IPsec Rekeys per second• RADIUS Server lost every 30 minutes• Continuous DOS Attacks (using Nessus)• Close/Open 1 SSH session per minute• Enter SHOW, Config, and Errored commands for every open session• 1 SNMP GET per second• 1 FTP File Transer of 100Mb every second

* Tester is Test Device or System of Test Devices

Example Stress Test – Test Conditions

18

DEVICE #11. Configuration Sets achieved

2. Startup Phase BenchmarksStable Aggregate forwarding Rate = 4GbpsStable Latency = 110 usecStable Session Count =

30 BGP Peers 28 OSPF Adjacencies16K IPsec Tunnels

3. Apply Instability Conditions

4. Instability Phase Benchmarks*Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 3.5GbpsDegraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 0.5GbpsUnstable Latency = 110usec Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost = 126

*These are averages. It is recommended to record these values at 1 second interval

5. Stop applying Instability Conditions after X hours (24 for this test)

6. Recover Phase BenchmarksRecovery Time = 22 secondsRecovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 4GbpsRecovered Latency = 110usecRecovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost = 0

Example Stress Test – Benchmarks

DEVICE #21. Configuration Sets achieved

2. Startup Phase BenchmarksStable Aggregate forwarding Rate = 4GbpsStable Latency = 150 usecStable Session Count =

30 BGP Peers 28 OSPF Adjacencies16K IPsec Tunnels

3. Apply Instability Conditions

4. Instability Phase Benchmarks*Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate=3.3GbpsDegraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate= 0.7GbpsUnstable Latency = 170usec Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost = 4000

*These are averages. It is recommended to record these values at 1 second interval

•5. Stop applying Instability Conditions after X hours (24 for this test)

6. Recover Phase BenchmarksRecovery Time= InfiniteRecovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 3.9GbpsRecovered Latency = 150usecRecovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost = 97

•Configuration Set in this test was reduced from a previous test because Device #2 crashed at 20 hours•Test was repeated with 3rd Configuration Set to obtain a Recovery Time for Device #2