idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-11.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force L. Avramov 3 INTERNET-DRAFT, Intended Status: Informational Google 4 Expires December 20,2017 J. Rapp 5 June 18, 2017 VMware 7 Data Center Benchmarking Methodology 8 draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-11 10 Abstract 12 The purpose of this informational document is to establish test and 13 evaluation methodology and measurement techniques for physical 14 network equipment in the data center. Many of these terms and methods 15 may be applicable beyond this publication's scope as the technologies 16 originally applied in the data center are deployed elsewhere. 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working 25 documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is 26 at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation . . . . 5 53 2. Line Rate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 2.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 2.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 2.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 3. Buffering Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 3.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 3.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 3.3 Reporting format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 4 Microburst Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 62 4.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 63 4.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 4.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 5. Head of Line Blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 5.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 5.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 5.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 69 6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 70 6.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 6.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 72 6.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 76 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 77 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 9.2. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 81 1. Introduction 83 Traffic patterns in the data center are not uniform and are 84 constantly changing. They are dictated by the nature and variety of 85 applications utilized in the data center. It can be largely east-west 86 traffic flows in one data center and north-south in another, while 87 others may combine both. Traffic patterns can be bursty in nature and 88 contain many-to-one, many-to-many, or one-to-many flows. Each flow 89 may also be small and latency sensitive or large and throughput 90 sensitive while containing a mix of UDP and TCP traffic. All of these 91 can coexist in a single cluster and flow through a single network 92 device simultaneously. Benchmarking of network devices have long used 93 [RFC1242], [RFC2432], [RFC2544], [RFC2889] and [RFC3918] which have 94 largely been focused around various latency attributes and Throughput 95 [RFC2889] of the Device Under Test (DUT) being benchmarked. These 96 standards are good at measuring theoretical Throughput, forwarding 97 rates and latency under testing conditions; however, they do not 98 represent real traffic patterns that may affect these networking 99 devices. 101 The following provides a methodology for benchmarking Data Center 102 physical network equipment DUT including congestion scenarios, switch 103 buffer analysis, microburst, head of line blocking, while also using 104 a wide mix of traffic conditions. The terminology document [1] is a 105 pre-requisite. 107 1.1. Requirements Language 109 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 110 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 111 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 113 1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation 115 The format used for each section of this document is the following: 117 -Objective 119 -Methodology 121 -Reporting Format: Additional interpretation of RFC2119 terms: 123 MUST: required metric or benchmark for the scenario described 124 (minimum) 126 SHOULD or RECOMMENDED: strongly suggested metric for the scenario 127 described 129 MAY: Optional metric for the scenario described 131 For each test methodology described, it is critical to obtain 132 repeatability in the results. The recommendation is to perform enough 133 iterations of the given test and to make sure the result is 134 consistent. This is especially important for section 3, as the 135 buffering testing has been historically the least reliable. The 136 number of iterations SHOULD be explicitly reported. The relative 137 standard deviation SHOULD be below 10%. 139 2. Line Rate Testing 141 2.1 Objective 143 Provide a maximum rate test for the performance values for 144 Throughput, latency and jitter. It is meant to provide the tests to 145 perform, and methodology to verify that a DUT is capable of 146 forwarding packets at line rate under non-congested conditions. 148 2.2 Methodology 150 A traffic generator SHOULD be connected to all ports on the DUT. Two 151 tests MUST be conducted: a port-pair test [RFC 2544/3918 section 15 152 compliant] and also in a full mesh type of DUT test [2889/3918 153 section 16 compliant]. 155 For all tests, the test traffic generator sending rate MUST be less 156 than or equal to 99.98% of the nominal value of Line Rate (with no 157 further PPM adjustment to account for interface clock tolerances), to 158 ensure stressing the DUT in reasonable worst case conditions (see RFC 159 [1] section 5 for more details --note to RFC Editor, please replace 160 all [1] references in this document with the future RFC number of 161 that draft). Tests results at a lower rate MAY be provided for better 162 understanding of performance increase in terms of latency and jitter 163 when the rate is lower than 99.98%. The receiving rate of the traffic 164 SHOULD be captured during this test in % of line rate. 166 The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and maximum 167 of the latency distribution, for the exact same iteration of the 168 test. 170 The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and maximum 171 of the jitter distribution, for the exact same iteration of the test. 173 Alternatively when a traffic generator can not be connected to all 174 ports on the DUT, a snake test MUST be used for line rate testing, 175 excluding latency and jitter as those became then irrelevant. The 176 snake test consists in the following method: 178 -connect the first and last port of the DUT to a traffic generator 180 -connect back to back sequentially all the ports in between: port 2 181 to 3, port 4 to 5 etc to port n-2 to port n-1; where n is the total 182 number of ports of the DUT 184 -configure port 1 and 2 in the same vlan X, port 3 and 4 in the same 185 vlan Y, etc. port n-1 and port n in the same vlan Z. 187 This snake test provides a capability to test line rate for Layer 2 188 and Layer 3 RFC 2544/3918 in instance where a traffic generator with 189 only two ports is available. The latency and jitter are not to be 190 considered with this test. 192 2.3 Reporting Format 194 The report MUST include: 196 -physical layer calibration information as defined into [1] section 197 4. 199 -number of ports used 201 -reading for "Throughput received in percentage of bandwidth", while 202 sending 99.98% of nominal value of Line Rate on each port, for each 203 packet size from 64 bytes to 9216 bytes. As guidance, an increment of 204 64 byte packet size between each iteration being ideal, a 256 byte 205 and 512 bytes being are also often used. The most common packets 206 sizes order for the report is: 207 64b,128b,256b,512b,1024b,1518b,4096,8000,9216b. 209 The pattern for testing can be expressed using [RFC 6985]. 211 -Throughput needs to be expressed in % of total transmitted frames 213 -For packet drops, they MUST be expressed as a count of packets and 214 SHOULD be expressed in % of line rate 216 -For latency and jitter, values expressed in unit of time [usually 217 microsecond or nanosecond] reading across packet size from 64 bytes 218 to 9216 bytes 220 -For latency and jitter, provide minimum, average and maximum values. 221 If different iterations are done to gather the minimum, average and 222 maximum, it SHOULD be specified in the report along with a 223 justification on why the information could not have been gathered at 224 the same test iteration 226 -For jitter, a histogram describing the population of packets 227 measured per latency or latency buckets is RECOMMENDED 229 -The tests for Throughput, latency and jitter MAY be conducted as 230 individual independent trials, with proper documentation in the 231 report but SHOULD be conducted at the same time. 233 -The methodology makes an assumption that the DUT has at least nine 234 ports, as certain methodologies require that number of ports or 235 more. 237 3. Buffering Testing 239 3.1 Objective 241 To measure the size of the buffer of a DUT under 242 typical|many|multiple conditions. Buffer architectures between 243 multiple DUTs can differ and include egress buffering, shared egress 244 buffering SoC (Switch-on-Chip), ingress buffering or a combination. 245 The test methodology covers the buffer measurement regardless of 246 buffer architecture used in the DUT. 248 3.2 Methodology 250 A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT. 252 The methodology for measuring buffering for a data-center switch is 253 based on using known congestion of known fixed packet size along with 254 maximum latency value measurements. The maximum latency will increase 255 until the first packet drop occurs. At this point, the maximum 256 latency value will remain constant. This is the point of inflection 257 of this maximum latency change to a constant value. There MUST be 258 multiple ingress ports receiving known amount of frames at a known 259 fixed size, destined for the same egress port in order to create a 260 known congestion condition. The total amount of packets sent from the 261 oversubscribed port minus one, multiplied by the packet size 262 represents the maximum port buffer size at the measured inflection 263 point. 265 1) Measure the highest buffer efficiency 267 First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, 268 while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic 269 (1% recommended) with a packet size of 64 bytes to egress port 2. 270 Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the 271 port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point 272 multiplied by the frame size. 274 Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, 275 while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic 276 (1% recommended) with same packet size 65 bytes to egress port 2. 277 Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the 278 port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point 279 multiplied by the frame size. 281 Last iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, 282 while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic 283 (1% recommended) with same packet size B bytes to egress port 2. 284 Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the 285 port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point 286 multiplied by the frame size. 288 When the B value is found to provide the largest buffer size, then 289 size B allows the highest buffer efficiency. 291 2) Measure maximum port buffer size 292 At fixed packet size B determined in procedure 1), for a fixed 293 default Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)/Class of Service 294 (COS) value of 0 and for unicast traffic proceed with the following: 296 First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2, 297 while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic 298 (1% recommended) with same packet size to the egress port 2. Measure 299 the buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames sent 300 by the frame size. 302 Second iteration: ingress port 2 sending line rate to egress port 3, 303 while port 4 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic 304 (1% recommended) with same packet size to the egress port 3. Measure 305 the buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames sent 306 by the frame size. 308 Last iteration: ingress port N-2 sending line rate traffic to egress 309 port N-1, while port N sending a known low amount of over- 310 subscription traffic (1% recommended) with same packet size to the 311 egress port N. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the 312 number of extra frames sent by the frame size. 314 This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP/COS values 315 of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic, in order to find 316 if there is any DSCP/COS impact on the buffer size. 318 3) Measure maximum port pair buffer sizes 320 First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2; 321 ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port 322 N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress 323 port 2 and port 3. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the 324 number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress port. 326 Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2; 327 ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port 328 N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress 329 port 4 and port 5. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the 330 number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress port. 332 Last iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2; 333 ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port 334 N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress 335 port N-3 and port N-2. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying 336 the number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress 337 port. 339 This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP/COS values 340 of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic. 342 4) Measure maximum DUT buffer size with many to one ports 344 First iteration: ingress ports 1,2,... N-1 sending each [(1/[N- 345 1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the N egress port. 347 Second iteration: ingress ports 2,... N sending each [(1/[N- 348 1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the 1 egress port. 350 Last iteration: ingress ports N,1,2...N-2 sending each [(1/[N- 351 1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the N-1 egress port. 353 This test series MAY be repeated using all different COS values of 354 traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic. 356 Unicast traffic and then Multicast traffic SHOULD be used in order to 357 determine the proportion of buffer for documented selection of tests. 358 Also the COS value for the packets SHOULD be provided for each test 359 iteration as the buffer allocation size MAY differ per COS value. It 360 is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in a 361 random, but documented fashion in multiple tests to measure the 362 buffer size for each port of the DUT. 364 3.3 Reporting format 366 The report MUST include: 368 - The packet size used for the most efficient buffer used, along 369 with DSCP/COS value 371 - The maximum port buffer size for each port 373 - The maximum DUT buffer size 375 - The packet size used in the test 377 - The amount of over-subscription if different than 1% 379 - The number of ingress and egress ports along with their location 380 on the DUT 382 - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of 383 iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between 384 results for each of the tests (min, max, avg) 386 The percentage of variation is a metric providing a sense of how big 387 the difference between the measured value and the previous ones. 389 For example, for a latency test where the minimum latency is 390 measured, the percentage of variation of the minimum latency will 391 indicate by how much this value has varied between the current test 392 executed and the previous one. 394 PV=((x2-x1)/x1)*100 where x2 is the minimum latency value in the 395 current test and x1 is the minimum latency value obtained in the 396 previous test. 398 The same formula is used for max and avg variations measured. 400 4 Microburst Testing 402 4.1 Objective 404 To find the maximum amount of packet bursts a DUT can sustain under 405 various configurations. 407 4.2 Methodology 409 A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT. In 410 order to cause congestion, two or more ingress ports MUST send bursts 411 of packets destined for the same egress port. The simplest of the 412 setups would be two ingress ports and one egress port (2-to-1). 414 The burst MUST be sent with an intensity of 100%, meaning the burst 415 of packets will be sent with a minimum inter-packet gap. The amount 416 of packet contained in the burst will be trial variable and increase 417 until there is a non-zero packet loss measured. The aggregate amount 418 of packets from all the senders will be used to calculate the maximum 419 amount of microburst the DUT can sustain. 421 It is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in 422 multiple tests to measure the maximum microburst capacity. 424 The intensity of a microburst MAY be varied in order to obtain the 425 microburst capacity at various ingress rates. Intensity of microburst 426 is defined in [1]. 428 It is RECOMMENDED that all ports on the DUT will be tested 429 simultaneously and in various configurations in order to understand 430 all the combinations of ingress ports, egress ports and intensities. 432 An example would be: 434 First Iteration: N-1 Ingress ports sending to 1 Egress Ports 435 Second Iterations: N-2 Ingress ports sending to 2 Egress Ports 437 Last Iterations: 2 Ingress ports sending to N-2 Egress Ports 439 4.3 Reporting Format 441 The report MUST include: 443 - The maximum number of packets received per ingress port with the 444 maximum burst size obtained with zero packet loss 446 - The packet size used in the test 448 - The number of ingress and egress ports along with their location 449 on the DUT 451 - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of 452 iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between 453 results (min, max, avg) 455 5. Head of Line Blocking 457 5.1 Objective 459 Head-of-line blocking (HOL blocking) is a performance-limiting 460 phenomenon that occurs when packets are held-up by the first packet 461 ahead waiting to be transmitted to a different output port. This is 462 defined in RFC 2889 section 5.5, Congestion Control. This section 463 expands on RFC 2889 in the context of Data Center Benchmarking. 465 The objective of this test is to understand the DUT behavior under 466 head of line blocking scenario and measure the packet loss. 468 5.2 Methodology 470 In order to cause congestion in the form of head of line blocking, 471 groups of four ports are used. A group has 2 ingress and 2 egress 472 ports. The first ingress port MUST have two flows configured each 473 going to a different egress port. The second ingress port will 474 congest the second egress port by sending line rate. The goal is to 475 measure if there is loss on the flow for the first egress port which 476 is not over-subscribed. 478 A traffic generator MUST be connected to at least eight ports on the 479 DUT and SHOULD be connected using all the DUT ports. 481 1) Measure two groups with eight DUT ports 483 First iteration: measure the packet loss for two groups with 484 consecutive ports 486 The first group is composed of: ingress port 1 is sending 50% of 487 traffic to egress port 3 and ingress port 1 is sending 50% of traffic 488 to egress port 4. Ingress port 2 is sending line rate to egress port 489 4. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress 490 port 1 to egress port 3. 492 The second group is composed of: ingress port 5 is sending 50% of 493 traffic to egress port 7 and ingress port 5 is sending 50% of traffic 494 to egress port 8. Ingress port 6 is sending line rate to egress port 495 8. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress 496 port 5 to egress port 7. 498 Second iteration: repeat the first iteration by shifting all the 499 ports from N to N+1. 501 The first group is composed of: ingress port 2 is sending 50% of 502 traffic to egress port 4 and ingress port 2 is sending 50% of traffic 503 to egress port 5. Ingress port 3 is sending line rate to egress port 504 5. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress 505 port 2 to egress port 4. 507 The second group is composed of: ingress port 6 is sending 50% of 508 traffic to egress port 8 and ingress port 6 is sending 50% of traffic 509 to egress port 9. Ingress port 7 is sending line rate to egress port 510 9. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress 511 port 6 to egress port 8. 513 Last iteration: when the first port of the first group is connected 514 on the last DUT port and the last port of the second group is 515 connected to the seventh port of the DUT. 517 Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress port 518 N to egress port 2 and from ingress port 4 to egress port 6. 520 2) Measure with N/4 groups with N DUT ports 522 The traffic from ingress split across 4 egress ports (100/4=25%). 524 First iteration: Expand to fully utilize all the DUT ports in 525 increments of four. Repeat the methodology of 1) with all the group 526 of ports possible to achieve on the device and measure for each port 527 group the amount of traffic loss. 529 Second iteration: Shift by +1 the start of each consecutive ports of 530 groups 532 Last iteration: Shift by N-1 the start of each consecutive ports of 533 groups and measure the traffic loss for each port group. 535 5.3 Reporting Format 537 For each test the report MUST include: 539 - The port configuration including the number and location of ingress 540 and egress ports located on the DUT 542 - If HOLB was observed in accordance with the HOLB test in section 5 544 - Percent of traffic loss 546 - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of 547 iteration of the same test and percentage of variation between 548 results (min, max, avg) 550 6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic 552 6.1 Objective 554 The objective of this test is to measure the values for TCP Goodput 555 [4] and latency with a mix of large and small flows. The test is 556 designed to simulate a mixed environment of stateful flows that 557 require high rates of goodput and stateless flows that require low 558 latency. 560 6.2 Methodology 562 In order to simulate the effects of stateless and stateful traffic on 563 the DUT, there MUST be multiple ingress ports receiving traffic 564 destined for the same egress port. There also MAY be a mix of 565 stateful and stateless traffic arriving on a single ingress port. The 566 simplest setup would be 2 ingress ports receiving traffic destined to 567 the same egress port. 569 One ingress port MUST be maintaining a TCP connection trough the 570 ingress port to a receiver connected to an egress port. Traffic in 571 the TCP stream MUST be sent at the maximum rate allowed by the 572 traffic generator. At the same time, the TCP traffic is flowing 573 through the DUT the stateless traffic is sent destined to a receiver 574 on the same egress port. The stateless traffic MUST be a microburst 575 of 100% intensity. 577 It is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in 578 multiple tests to measure the maximum microburst capacity. 580 The intensity of a microburst MAY be varied in order to obtain the 581 microburst capacity at various ingress rates. 583 It is RECOMMENDED that all ports on the DUT be used in the test. 585 For example: 587 Stateful Traffic port variation: 589 During Iterations number of Egress ports MAY vary as well. 591 First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 592 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port 594 Second Iteration: 2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 595 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port 597 Last Iteration: N-2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 598 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port 600 Stateless Traffic port variation: 602 During Iterations, the number of Egress ports MAY vary as well. First 603 Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1 604 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port 606 Second Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 2 607 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port 609 Last Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and N-2 610 Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port 612 6.3 Reporting Format 614 The report MUST include the following: 616 - Number of ingress and egress ports along with designation of 617 stateful or stateless flow assignment. 619 - Stateful flow goodput 621 - Stateless flow latency 622 - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of 623 iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between 624 results (min, max, avg) 626 7. Security Considerations 628 Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to 629 technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory 630 environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints 631 specified in the sections above. 633 The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup 634 and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test 635 traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test 636 management network. 638 Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying 639 solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. 641 Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for 642 benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising 643 from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production 644 networks. 646 8. IANA Considerations 648 NO IANA Action is requested at this time. 650 9. References 651 9.1. Normative References 653 [RFC1242] Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network 654 Interconnection Devices", BCP 14, RFC 1242, DOI 655 10.17487/RFC1242, July 1991, 658 [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for 659 Network Interconnect Devices", BCP 14, RFC 2544, DOI 660 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, 663 9.2. Informative References 665 [1] Avramov L. and Rapp J., "Data Center Benchmarking Terminology", 666 April 2017. 668 [RFC2889] Mandeville R. and Perser J., "Benchmarking Methodology for 669 LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, August 2000, 672 [RFC3918] Stopp D. and Hickman B., "Methodology for IP Multicast 673 Benchmarking", RFC 3918, October 2004, 676 [RFC 6985] A. Morton, "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable 677 Packet Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013, 678 680 [4] Yanpei Chen, Rean Griffith, Junda Liu, Randy H. Katz, Anthony D. 681 Joseph, "Understanding TCP Incast Throughput Collapse in 682 Datacenter Networks, 683 "http://yanpeichen.com/professional/usenixLoginIncastReady.pdf" 685 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 686 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, 687 March 1997, 689 [RFC2432] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast 690 Benchmarking", BCP 14, RFC 2432, DOI 10.17487/RFC2432, October 691 1998, 693 9.2. Acknowledgements 694 The authors would like to thank Alfred Morton and Scott Bradner 695 for their reviews and feedback. 697 Authors' Addresses 699 Lucien Avramov 700 Google 701 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 702 Mountain View, CA 94043 703 United States 704 Phone: +1 408 774 9077 705 Email: lucienav@google.com 707 Jacob Rapp 708 VMware 709 3401 Hillview Ave 710 Palo Alto, CA 711 United States 712 Phone: +1 650 857 3367 713 Email: jrapp@vmware.com