Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Bridge Out: Extending RFC 2544 for DCB Devices Timmons C. Player David Newman IETF BMWG interim meeting, 30 October 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Bridge Out: Extending RFC 2544 for DCB Devices Timmons C. Player David Newman IETF BMWG interim meeting, 30 October 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 Bridge Out: Extending RFC 2544 for DCB Devices Timmons C. Player David Newman IETF BMWG interim meeting, 30 October 2009

2 Agenda World’s shortest DCB intro Limitations of throughput for DCB Limitations of latency for DCB Other problems New metrics for DCB testing

3 Introducing DCB DCB (aka DCE, CEE) converges data, storage onto single network IEEE 802.1Qbb (aka PFC) adds flow control per VLAN priority Other DCB mechanisms for: –Capabilities exchange (DCBX) –Congestion notification (802.1Qau) –Shaping (802.1Qaz)

4 What’s wrong with throughput? RFC 1242 throughput is fine – for Ethernet –Canonical method: Measure oload with 0 loss, followed by oload with packet loss –Highest zero-drop rate is the throughput rate This does not work for DCB

5 What’s wrong with throughput? Loss should never occur with DCB –Flow control throttles transmitters –Impossible to have success case, then fail case No distinction between iload and oload –Device that forwards 0 packets could have “line-rate throughput” in DCB context No distinction among traffic classes –Different classes may (and probably will) have different maximum forwarding rates

6 What’s wrong with latency? RFC 2544, section 26.2, requires measurement at throughput rate –Oops: There is no throughput rate RFC 1242 uses different measurements for store-and-forward, bit-forwarding –Oops: DCB devices may alternate modes RFC 2544 does not measure per class

7 What else can go wrong? 2544/2889 tests use “lock step” pattern 1 -> [2,3,4]; 2 -> [3,4,1]; 3-> [4,1,2]; etc. Very regular packet departure intervals

8 What else can go wrong? DCB devices quickly go out of lock step Not just per-port but also per-class Much tougher on schedulers Traffic class XOFF/XON interval (µsec) Inter-PFC burst interval (µsec) P1200500 P2150450 P3300700

9 DCB testing: What’s new Proposed new work item: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-player-dcb-benchmarking-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-player-dcb-benchmarking-00.txt New metric: Queueput –Measures MOL per classification –Multiple queueputs, one per classification, are possible Maximum forwarding rate –Same concept as in 2285/2889 –For DCB, more meaningful than throughput –Extended to measure per classification

10 DCB testing: What’s new Back-off measures DUT PFC overhead –Conceptually similar to 2544 frame loss test –Offer traffic above queueput rate; then reduce iload until the DUT no longer pauses ingress traffic –Measure per classification

11 DCB testing: What’s new Back-to-back –Conceptually similar to back-off in RFCs 1242/2544 –Extended to measure per classification Other DCB metrics?

12 Thanks! timmons.player@spirent.com dnewman@networktest.com


Download ppt "Bridge Out: Extending RFC 2544 for DCB Devices Timmons C. Player David Newman IETF BMWG interim meeting, 30 October 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google