idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2544, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC2544 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC2544, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1999-03-01) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 16, 2020) is 1251 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1944 (Obsoleted by RFC 2544) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Morton 3 Internet-Draft AT&T Labs 4 Updates: 2544 (if approved) November 16, 2020 5 Intended status: Informational 6 Expires: May 20, 2021 8 Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544 9 draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03 11 Abstract 13 Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect 14 Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. This memo 15 updates the procedures of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames 16 Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience. 18 This memo updates Section 26.4 of RFC 2544. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 24 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 25 14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 26 capitals, as shown here. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2021. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 5. Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 5.3. Test Repetition and Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 1. Introduction 82 The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined in 83 [RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and 84 [RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944]. 85 Over time, the benchmarking community has updated [RFC2544] several 86 times, including the Device Reset Benchmark [RFC6201], and the 87 important Applicability Statement [RFC6815] concerning use outside 88 the Isolated Test Environment (ITE) required for accurate 89 benchmarking. Other specifications implicitly update [RFC2544], such 90 as the IPv6 Benchmarking Methodologies in [RFC5180]. 92 Recent testing experience with the Back-to-back Frame test and 93 Benchmark in Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] indicates that an update is 94 warranted [OPNFV-2017] [VSPERF-b2b]. In particular, analysis of the 95 results indicates that buffer size matters when compensating for 96 interruptions of software packet processing, and this finding 97 increases the importance of the Back-to-back frame characterization 98 described here. This memo describes additional rationale and 99 provides the updated method. 101 [RFC2544] (which Obsoletes [RFC1944]) provides its own Requirements 102 Language consistent with [RFC2119], since [RFC1944] pre-dates 103 [RFC2119] and all three memos share common authorship. 104 Today,[RFC8174] clarifies the usage of Requirements Language, so the 105 requirements presented in this memo are expressed in [RFC8174] terms, 106 and intended for those performing/reporting laboratory tests to 107 improve clarity and repeatability, and for those designing devices 108 that facilitate these tests. 110 2. Scope and Goals 112 The scope of this memo is to define an updated method to 113 unambiguously perform tests, measure the benchmark(s), and report the 114 results for Back-to-back Frames (presently described Section 26.4 of 115 [RFC2544]). 117 The goal is to provide more efficient test procedures where possible, 118 and to expand reporting with additional interpretation of the 119 results. The tests described in this memo address the cases in which 120 the maximum frame rate of a single ingress port cannot be transferred 121 loss-free to an egress port (for some frame sizes of interest). 123 [RFC2544] Benchmarks rely on test conditions with constant frame 124 sizes, with the goal of understanding what network device capability 125 has been tested. Tests with the smallest size stress the header 126 processing capacity, and tests with the largest size stress the 127 overall bit processing capacity. Tests with sizes in-between may 128 determine the transition between these two capacities. However, 129 conditions simultaneously sending multiple frame sizes, such as those 130 described in [RFC6985], MUST NOT be used in Back-to-back Frame 131 testing. 133 Section 3 of [RFC8239] describes buffer size testing for physical 134 networking devices in a Data Center. The [RFC8239] methods measure 135 buffer latency directly with traffic on multiple ingress ports that 136 overload an egress port on the Device Under Test (DUT) and are not 137 subject to the revised calculations presented in this memo. 138 Likewise, the methods of [RFC8239] SHOULD be used for test cases 139 where the egress port buffer is the known point of overload. 141 3. Motivation 143 Section 3.1 of [RFC1242] describes the rationale for the Back-to-back 144 Frames Benchmark. To summarize, there are several reasons that 145 devices on a network produce bursts of frames at the minimum allowed 146 spacing; and it is, therefore, worthwhile to understand the Device 147 Under Test (DUT) limit on the length of such bursts in practice. 148 Also, [RFC1242] states: 150 "Tests of this parameter are intended to determine the extent 151 of data buffering in the device." 153 After this test was defined, there have been occasional discussions 154 of the stability and repeatability of the results, both over time and 155 across labs. Fortunately, the Open Platform for Network Function 156 Virtualization (OPNFV) VSPERF project's Continuous Integration (CI) 157 [VSPERF-CI] testing routinely repeats Back-to-back Frame tests to 158 verify that test functionality has been maintained through 159 development of the test control programs. These tests were used as a 160 basis to evaluate stability and repeatability, even across lab set- 161 ups when the test platform was migrated to new DUT hardware at the 162 end of 2016. 164 When the VSPERF CI results were examined [VSPERF-b2b], several 165 aspects of the results were considered notable: 167 1. Back-to-back Frame Benchmark was very consistent for some fixed 168 frame sizes, and somewhat variable for other frame sizes. 170 2. The number of Back-to-back Frames with zero loss reported for 171 large frame sizes was unexpectedly long (translating to 30 172 seconds of buffer time), and no explanation or measurement limit 173 condition was indicated. It was important that the buffering 174 time calculations were part of the referenced testing and 175 analysis[VSPERF-b2b], because the calculated buffer times of 30 176 seconds for some frame sizes were clearly wrong or highly 177 suspect. On the other hand, a result expressed only as a large 178 number of Back-to-back Frames does not permit such an easy 179 comparison with reality. 181 3. Calculation of the extent of buffer time in the DUT helped to 182 explain the results observed with all frame sizes (for example, 183 tests with some frame sizes cannot exceed the frame header 184 processing rate of the DUT and thus no buffering occurs; 185 therefore, the results depended on the test equipment and not the 186 DUT). 188 4. It was found that a better estimate of the DUT buffer time could 189 be calculated using measurements of both the longest burst in 190 frames without loss and results from the Throughput tests 191 conducted according to Section 26.1 of [RFC2544]. It is apparent 192 that the DUT's frame processing rate empties the buffer during a 193 trial and tends to increase the "implied" buffer size estimate 194 (measured according to Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] because many 195 frames have departed the buffer when the burst of frames ends). 196 A calculation using the Throughput measurement can reveal a 197 "corrected" buffer size estimate. 199 Further, if the Throughput tests of Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] are 200 conducted as a prerequisite test, the number of frame sizes required 201 for Back-to-back Frame Benchmarking can be reduced to one or more of 202 the small frame sizes, or the results for large frame sizes can be 203 noted as invalid in the results if tested anyway (these are the 204 larger frame sizes for which the back-to-back frame rate cannot 205 exceed the frame header processing rate of the DUT and little or no 206 buffering occurs). 208 The material below provides the details of the calculation to 209 estimate the actual buffer storage available in the DUT, using 210 results from the Throughput tests for each frame size, and the 211 maximum theoretical frame rate for the DUT links (which constrain the 212 minimum frame spacing). 214 In reality, there are many buffers and packet header processing steps 215 in a typical DUT. The simplified model used in these calculations 216 for the DUT includes a packet header processing function with limited 217 rate of operation, as shown below: 219 |------------ DUT --------| 220 Generator -> Ingress -> Buffer -> HeaderProc -> Egress -> Receiver 222 So, in the back2back frame testing: 224 1. The Ingress burst arrives at Max Theoretical Frame Rate, and 225 initially the frames are buffered. 227 2. The packet header processing function (HeaderProc) operates at 228 the "Measured Throughput" (Section 26.1 of [RFC2544]), removing 229 frames from the buffer (this is the best approximation we have). 231 3. Frames that have been processed are clearly not in the buffer, so 232 the Corrected DUT buffer time equation (Section 5.4) estimates 233 and removes the frames that the DUT forwarded on Egress during 234 the burst. We define buffer time as the number of Frames 235 occupying the buffer divided by the Maximum Theoretical Frame 236 Rate (on ingress) for the Frame size under test. 238 4. A helpful concept is the buffer filling rate, which is the 239 difference between the Max Theoretical Frame Rate (ingress) and 240 the Measured Throughput (HeaderProc on egress). If the actual 241 buffer size in frames was known, the time to fill the buffer 242 during a measurement can be calculated using the filling rate as 243 a check on measurements. However, the Buffer in the model 244 represents many buffers of different sizes in the DUT data path. 246 Knowledge of approximate buffer storage size (in time or bytes) may 247 be useful to estimate whether frame losses will occur if DUT 248 forwarding is temporarily suspended in a production deployment, due 249 to an unexpected interruption of frame processing (an interruption of 250 duration greater than the estimated buffer would certainly cause lost 251 frames). In Section 5, the calculations for the correct buffer time 252 use the combination of offered load at Max Theoretical Frame Rate and 253 header processing speed at 100% of Measured Throughput. Other 254 combinations are possible, such as changing the percent of measured 255 Throughput to account for other processes reducing the header 256 processing rate. 258 The presentation of OPNFV VSPERF evaluation and development of 259 enhanced search algorithms [VSPERF-BSLV] was discussed at IETF-102. 260 The enhancements are intended to compensate for transient interrupts 261 that may cause loss at near-Throughput levels of offered load. 262 Subsequent analysis of the results indicates that buffers within the 263 DUT can compensate for some interrupts, and this finding increases 264 the importance of the Back-to-back frame characterization described 265 here. 267 4. Prerequisites 269 The Test Setup MUST be consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or 270 Figure 2 when the tester's sender and receiver are different devices. 271 Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] MUST be 272 included, unless explicitly modified in the next section. 274 The ingress and egress link speeds and link layer protocols MUST be 275 specified and used to compute the maximum theoretical frame rate when 276 respecting the minimum inter-frame gap. 278 The test results for the Throughput Benchmark conducted according to 279 Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] for all [RFC2544]-RECOMMENDED frame sizes 280 MUST be available to reduce the tested frame size list, or to note 281 invalid results for individual frame sizes (because the burst length 282 may be essentially infinite for large frame sizes). 284 Note that: 286 o the Throughput and the Back-to-back Frame measurement 287 configuration traffic characteristics (unidirectional or bi- 288 directional, and number of flows generated) MUST match. 290 o the Throughput measurement MUST be under zero-loss conditions, 291 according to Section 26.1 of [RFC2544]. 293 The Back-to-back Benchmark described in Section 3.1 of [RFC1242] MUST 294 be measured directly by the tester, where buffer size is inferred 295 from Back-to-back Frame bursts and associated packet loss 296 measurements. Therefore, sources of packet loss that are unrelated 297 to consistent evaluation of buffer size SHOULD be identified and 298 removed or mitigated. Example sources include: 300 o On-path active components that are external to the DUT 302 o Operating system environment interrupting DUT operation 304 o Shared resource contention between the DUT and other off-path 305 component(s) impacting DUT's behaviour, sometimes called the 306 "noisy neighbour" problem with virtualized network functions. 308 Mitigations applicable to some of the sources above are discussed in 309 Section 5.2, with the other measurement requirements described below 310 in Section 5. 312 5. Back-to-back Frames 314 Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to- 315 back frames as defined in [RFC1242]. 317 The Procedure follows. 319 5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes 321 From the list of RECOMMENDED Frame sizes (Section 9 of [RFC2544]), 322 select the subset of Frame sizes whose measured Throughput (during 323 prerequisite testing) was less than the maximum theoretical Frame 324 Rate of the DUT/test-set-up. These are the only Frame sizes where it 325 is possible to produce a burst of frames that cause the DUT buffers 326 to fill and eventually overflow, producing one or more discarded 327 frames. 329 5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size 331 Each trial in the test requires the tester to send a burst of frames 332 (after idle time) with the minimum inter-frame gap, and to count the 333 corresponding frames forwarded by the DUT. 335 The duration of the trial MUST be at least 2 seconds, to allow DUT 336 buffers to deplete. 338 If all frames have been received, the tester increases the length of 339 the burst according to the search algorithm and performs another 340 trial. 342 If the received frame count is less than the number of frames in the 343 burst, then the limit of DUT processing and buffering may have been 344 exceeded, and the burst length is determined by the search algorithm 345 for the next trial (the burst length is typically reduced, but see 346 below). 348 Classic search algorithms have been adapted for use in benchmarking, 349 where the search requires discovery of a pair of outcomes, one with 350 no loss and another with loss, at load conditions within the 351 acceptable tolerance or accuracy. Conditions encountered when 352 benchmarking the Infrastructure for Network Function Virtualization 353 require algorithm enhancement. Fortunately, the adaptation of Binary 354 Search, and an enhanced Binary Search with Loss Verification have 355 been specified in clause 12.3 of [TST009]. These algorithms can 356 easily be used for Back-to-back Frame benchmarking by replacing the 357 Offered Load level with burst length in frames. [TST009] Annex B 358 describes the theory behind the enhanced Binary Search with Loss 359 Verification algorithm. 361 There is also promising work-in-progress that may prove useful in 362 Back-to-back Frame benchmarking. 363 [I-D.vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch] and [I-D.vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch] 364 are two such examples. 366 Either the [TST009] Binary Search or Binary Search with Loss 367 Verification algorithms MUST be used, and input parameters to the 368 algorithm(s) MUST be reported. 370 The tester usually imposes a (configurable) minimum step size for 371 burst length, and the step size MUST be reported with the results (as 372 this influences the accuracy and variation of test results). 374 The original Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] definition is stated below: 376 The Back-to-back Frame value is the longest burst of frames that 377 the DUT can successfully process and buffer without frame loss, as 378 determined from the series of trials. 380 5.3. Test Repetition and Benchmark 382 On this topic, Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] requires: 384 The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated 385 at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being 386 reported. 388 Therefore, the Benchmark for Back-to-back Frames is the average of 389 burst length values over repeated tests to determine the longest 390 burst of frames that the DUT can successfully process and buffer 391 without frame loss. Each of the repeated tests completes an 392 independent search process. 394 In this update, the test MUST be repeated N times (the number of 395 repetitions is now a variable that must be reported),for each frame 396 size in the subset list, and each Back-to-back Frame value made 397 available for further processing (below). 399 5.4. Benchmark Calculations 401 For each Frame size, calculate the following summary statistics for 402 longest Back-to-back Frame values over the N tests: 404 o Average (Benchmark) 406 o Minimum 408 o Maximum 410 o Standard Deviation 412 Further, calculate the Implied DUT Buffer Time and the Corrected DUT 413 Buffer Time in seconds, as follows: 415 Implied DUT Buffer Time = 417 Average num of Back-to-back Frames / Max Theoretical Frame Rate 419 The formula above is simply expressing the Burst of Frames in units 420 of time. 422 The next step is to apply a correction factor that accounts for the 423 DUT's frame forwarding operation during the test (assuming the simple 424 model of the DUT composed of a buffer and a forwarding function, 425 described in Section 3). 427 Corrected DUT Buffer Time = 428 / \ 429 Implied DUT |Implied DUT Measured Throughput | 430 = Buffer Time - |Buffer Time * -------------------------- | 431 | Max Theoretical Frame Rate | 432 \ / 434 where: 436 1. The "Measured Throughput" is the [RFC2544] Throughput Benchmark 437 for the frame size tested, as augmented by methods including the 438 Binary Search with Loss Verification algorithm in [TST009] where 439 applicable, and MUST be expressed in Frames per second in this 440 equation. 442 2. The "Max Theoretical Frame Rate" is a calculated value for the 443 interface speed and link layer technology used, and MUST be 444 expressed in Frames per second in this equation. 446 The term on the far right in the formula for Corrected DUT Buffer 447 Time accounts for all the frames in the Burst that were transmitted 448 by the DUT *while the Burst of frames were sent in*. So, these frames 449 are not in the Buffer and the Buffer size is more accurately 450 estimated by excluding them. 452 6. Reporting 454 The back-to-back results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table 455 with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be 456 columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame count 457 for each type of data stream tested. 459 The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported. 461 The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete 462 tests SHOULD also be reported (they are referred to as 463 "Min,Max,StdDev" in the table below). 465 The Corrected DUT Buffer Time SHOULD also be reported. 467 If the tester operates using a limited maximum burst length in 468 frames, then this maximum length SHOULD be reported. 470 +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ 471 | Frame Size, | Ave B2B | Min,Max,StdDev | Corrected Buff | 472 | octets | Length, frames | | Time, Sec | 473 +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ 474 | 64 | 26000 | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004 | 475 +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ 477 Back-to-Back Frame Results 479 Static and configuration parameters: 481 Number of test repetitions, N 483 Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames. 485 If the tester has a specific (actual) frame rate of interest (less 486 than the Throughput rate), it is useful to estimate the buffer time 487 at that actual frame rate: 489 Actual Buffer Time = 490 Max Theoretical Frame Rate 491 = Corrected DUT Buffer Time * -------------------------- 492 Actual Frame Rate 494 and report this value, properly labeled. 496 7. Security Considerations 498 Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to 499 technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory 500 environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints 501 of[RFC2544]. 503 The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup 504 and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test 505 traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test 506 management network. See [RFC6815]. 508 Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying 509 solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. 511 Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for 512 benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising 513 from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production 514 networks. 516 8. IANA Considerations 518 This memo makes no requests of IANA. 520 9. Acknowledgements 522 Thanks to Trevor Cooper, Sridhar Rao, and Martin Klozik of the VSPERF 523 project for many contributions to the testing [VSPERF-b2b]. Yoshiaki 524 Itou has also investigated the topic, and made useful suggestions. 525 Maciek Konstantyowicz and Vratko Polak also provided many comments 526 and suggestions based on extensive integration testing and resulting 527 search algorithm proposals - the most up-to-date feedback possible. 528 Tim Carlin also provided comments and support for the draft. Warren 529 Kumari's review improved readability in several key passages. 531 10. References 533 10.1. Normative References 535 [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network 536 Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, 537 July 1991, . 539 [RFC1944] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for 540 Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 1944, 541 DOI 10.17487/RFC1944, May 1996, 542 . 544 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 545 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 546 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 547 . 549 [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for 550 Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, 551 DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, 552 . 554 [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. 555 Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network 556 Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May 557 2008, . 559 [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera, 560 "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201, 561 DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, 562 . 564 [RFC6815] Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton, 565 "Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production 566 Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815, 567 DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012, 568 . 570 [RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet 571 Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, 572 DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013, 573 . 575 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 576 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 577 May 2017, . 579 10.2. Informative References 581 [I-D.vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch] 582 Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Probabilistic Loss 583 Ratio Search for Packet Throughput (PLRsearch)", draft- 584 vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-03 (work in progress), March 2020. 586 [I-D.vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch] 587 Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Multiple Loss Ratio 588 Search for Packet Throughput (MLRsearch)", draft-vpolak- 589 mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03 (work in progress), March 2020. 591 [OPNFV-2017] 592 Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane 593 Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June 594 2017, 595 . 598 [RFC8239] Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking 599 Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017, 600 . 602 [TST009] Morton, R. A., "ETSI GS NFV-TST 009 V3.2.1 (2019-06), 603 "Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3; 604 Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and 605 Measurement Methods for NFVI"", June 2019, 606 . 609 [VSPERF-b2b] 610 Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)", 611 June 2017, . 615 [VSPERF-BSLV] 616 Morton, A. and S. Rao, "Evolution of Repeatability in 617 Benchmarking: Fraser Plugfest (Summary for IETF BMWG)", 618 July 2018, 619 . 623 [VSPERF-CI] 624 Tahhan, M., "OPNFV VSPERF CI", June 2019, 625 . 627 Author's Address 629 Al Morton 630 AT&T Labs 631 200 Laurel Avenue South 632 Middletown,, NJ 07748 633 USA 635 Phone: +1 732 420 1571 636 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 637 Email: acmorton@att.com