idnits 2.17.1 draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark-meth-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 21 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 41 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 31, 2016) is 2734 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7665' is mentioned on line 96, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2544' is defined on line 318, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7665' is defined on line 323, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Kim 3 Internet-Draft H. Yu 4 Intended status: Informational C. Jeong 5 Expires: May 4, 2017 Y. Han 6 E. Paik 7 KT 8 October 31, 2016 10 Benchmarking Methodology for Service Function Chain Performance 11 draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark-meth-00 13 Abstract 15 Service Function Chain is the ordered set of service functions such 16 as firewall, Deep Packet Inspection(DPI), virtualized Evolved Packet 17 Core (vEPC), and etc,. Operators make chains with several service 18 functions depending on the service which they have to provide. The 19 chain needs to be evaluated to measure the SLA. This draft describes 20 the benchmarking methodologies for Service Function Chain(SFC) 21 performance and the affecting factors to SFC performance. 23 Requirements Language 25 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 26 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 27 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3.1. Test Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3.2. Test Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4. Benchmarking Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 4.1. Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 4.2. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4.2.1. E2E Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4.2.2. E2E Packet Loss Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.2.3. E2E Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5. Factors affecting the SFC Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 80 1. Introduction 82 Service Function Chain is the ordered set of service functions such 83 as firewall, Deep Packet Inspection(DPI), virtualized Evolved Packet 84 Core (vEPC), and etc,. The service functions include virtualized 85 network functions and physical network functions. As the network 86 infrastructure become virtualized, operators make chains with several 87 service functions depending on the service which they have to 88 provide. The chain needs to be evaluated to measure the SLA. 90 This draft describes the benchmarking methodologies for Service 91 Function Chain(SFC) performance and the influential factors to SFC 92 performance. 94 2. Definition of Terms 96 The detail explanations of each term are in [RFC 7665] 98 SF Service Function 100 SFC Service Function Chain 102 SFF Service Function Forwarder 104 CLA Classifier 106 PNF Physical Network Function 108 VNF Virtualized Network Function 110 NSH Network Service Header 112 3. Test Setup 114 This section discusses test topology and the test traffic 116 3.1. Test Topology 118 +-------------------------------------------------------------+ 119 | Cloud | 120 | +--------+ +--------+ | 121 | | | | | | 122 | | VNF 1 | | VNF 2 | | 123 | | | | | | 124 | +--------+ +--------+ | 125 | | | | | | 126 | | | | | | 127 | +---------+ +-----------------------+ +---------+ | +--------+ 128 | | | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | | 129 | | vHost 1 |----| |CLA| |SFF| Virtual|----| vHost 2 | | | PNF | 130 | | | | +---+ +---+ Switch | | | | | | 131 | +---------+ +-----------------------+ +---------+ | +--------+ 132 +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | 133 | | | | 134 +--------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +--------+ 135 | | | +----------+ +--------------------------+ | | | 136 | Host 3 |----| |Classifier| |Service Function Forwarder| |----| Host 4 | 137 | | | +----------+ +--------------------------+ Physical Switch | | | 138 +--------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +--------+ 140 3.2. Test Traffic 142 There are two types of traffic. One is External traffic and the 143 other is Internal traffic. 145 o Internal Traffic : 147 * The traffic flows inside the cloud. A source host and a 148 destination host are inside the same cloud and the SFC is also 149 made in the cloud. Therefore, the SFC does not contain a SF 150 outside the cloud(PNF). (e.g. SFC : vHost1 -> VNF1 -> VNF2 -> 151 vHost2) 153 o External Traffic : 155 * The traffic flows outside the cloud. A source host or 156 destination host can be exists outside the cloud. Therefore, 157 the SFC can contain a SF outside the cloud(PNF) (e.g. SFC : 158 Host3 -> VNF1 -> VNF2 -> PNF-> Host4) 160 The frame sizes of the test traffic SHOULD be multiple sizes as 161 recommended in RFC2544. 163 4. Benchmarking Test 165 4.1. Connectivity 167 Objective : 169 The connectivity of each part of SFC and the end to end SFC it self. 170 This test demonstrates the SFC works properly. 172 Procedure: 174 1. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host 176 2. Check each SF and links between the SFs 178 3. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination 179 host. 181 4. Among SFs, the test traffic SHOULD flows only selected SF from 182 the source host to the destination host. 184 4.2. Performance 186 4.2.1. E2E Latency 188 Objective : 190 This test demonstrates how much time the SFC takes to flow traffic 191 from the source host to the desination host. Latency is the key of 192 some services such as video streaming. 194 Procedure: 196 1. Check the connectivity of the SFC 198 2. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host 200 3. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination 201 host. 203 Measurement: 205 E2E Latency Time = TL 207 Average E2E Latency : 209 TL1 + TL2 + ...TLn 210 ---------------------- 211 Total Test Iterations 213 4.2.2. E2E Packet Loss Rate 215 Objective : 217 This test demonstrates how many packets are loss depending on the 218 frame sizes or parallel SFCs 220 Procedure: 222 1. Check the connectivity of the SFC 224 2. Make the conflict circumstances with differenct frame sizes and 225 other SFCs 227 3. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host. 229 4. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination 230 host. 232 Measurement: 234 E2E Packet Loss Rate = PLR 236 Average Packet Loss Rate : 238 PLR1 + PLR2 + ...PLRn 239 ------------------------ 240 Total Test Iterations 242 4.2.3. E2E Bandwidth 244 Objective : 246 This test demonstrates how much bandwidth the SFC can support. To 247 find out the bandwidth of SFC is enough for particular sevices such 248 as bandwidth-intensive services. 250 Procedure: 252 1. Check the connectivity of the SFC 254 2. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host. 256 3. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination 257 host has no packet loss. 259 4. Record the E2E Bandwidth. 261 Measurement: 263 E2E Bandwidth = BW 265 Average E2E Bandwidth : 267 BW1 + BW2 + ...BWn 268 --------------------- 269 Total Test Iterations 271 5. Factors affecting the SFC Performance 273 This section describes factors affecting the SFC performance. 275 o SFC awareness 277 * - Depending on the awareness of SFC encapsulation,NSH, the SFC 278 performance is different. When SFC uses NSH, it takes time to 279 check the NSH of every packet. 281 o Composition of SFC 283 * the number of SFs in the SFC affects the SFC performance 284 because of the trasition overhead. 286 o Operation of SF 288 * The operations of SF can affect to the SFC performance, such as 289 DPI and UTM. 291 * When the SF has multi functions, the traffic takes time to pass 292 through the SF. 294 o Types of SF; PNF or VNF 296 * It is hard to assure the network performance of VNF because it 297 is on the virtual machine(VM); VNF is affected from the CPU of 298 physical machine(PM). 300 * VNF is also affected from the number of flow rules in the 301 virtual switch. 303 6. Security Considerations 305 TBD. 307 7. IANA Considerations 309 No IANA Action is requested at this time. 311 8. Normative References 313 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 314 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 315 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 316 . 318 [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for 319 Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, 320 DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, 321 . 323 [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function 324 Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, 325 DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, 326 . 328 Authors' Addresses 330 Taekhee Kim 331 KT 332 Infra R&D Lab. KT 333 17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu 334 Seoul 137-792 335 Korea 337 Phone: +82-2-526-6688 338 Fax: +82-2-526-5200 339 Email: taekhee.kim@kt.com 341 Hyun Yu 342 KT 343 Infra R&D Lab. KT 344 17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu 345 Seoul 137-792 346 Korea 348 Phone: +82-2-526-6688 349 Fax: +82-2-526-5200 350 Email: hyun.yu@kt.com 352 Chiwook Jeong 353 KT 354 Infra R&D Lab. KT 355 17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu 356 Seoul 137-792 357 Korea 359 Phone: +82-2-526-6688 360 Fax: +82-2-526-5200 361 Email: chiwook.jeong@kt.com 363 Youngtae Han 364 KT 365 Infra R&D Lab. KT 366 17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu 367 Seoul 137-792 368 Korea 370 Phone: +82-2-526-6688 371 Fax: +82-2-526-5200 372 Email: youngtae.han@kt.com 373 EunKyoung Paik 374 KT 375 Infra R&D Lab. KT 376 17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu 377 Seoul 137-792 378 Korea 380 Phone: +82-2-526-5233 381 Fax: +82-2-526-5200 382 Email: eun.paik@kt.com 383 URI: http://mmlab.snu.ac.kr/~eun/