1. IETF BMWG Work Items 65th IETF Meeting Dallas, TX Tuesday 3/21/06

2. 2 BENCHMARKING NETWORK LAYER TRAFFIC CONTROL MECHANISMS draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-11.txt draft-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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7 BENCHMARKING IGP DATA PLANE ROUTE CONVERGENCE draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-10.txt draft-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. 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 2 nd 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. 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. 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. 11 Next Steps -10 Ready for IESG Review?

12. 12 BENCHMARKING NETWORK DEVICES UNDER ACCLERATED STRESS draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-08.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-04.txt (draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-ebgp-00.txt draft-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. 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. 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. 15 Backup Slides

16. 16 Control Plane 30 BGP Peers (2 EBGP, 28 IBGP) 28 OSPF Adjacencies 400K route instances 175K routes in FIB MPLS Disabled Multicast Protocols Disabled 16K IPsec Tunnels 32K IPsec SAs 16K IKE SAs IPsec SA Lifetime = 8 hours IKEv2 SA Lifetime = 8 hours DPD Disabled Example Stress Test – Configuration Set Security Plane 100K Stateful Firewall Sessions 64K Firewall Rules DOS-Protection Enabled Management Plane 20 SSH Sessions 4 RADIUS Servers with round-robin Logging enabled SysLog enabled Statistics enabled Data Plane Interfaces = qty 4 GigE Data Rate = 4 Gbps Packet Size = 1500 bytes QoS Disabled

17. 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. 18 DEVICE #1 1. Configuration Sets achieved 2. Startup Phase Benchmarks Stable Aggregate forwarding Rate = 4Gbps Stable Latency = 110 usec Stable Session Count = 30 BGP Peers 28 OSPF Adjacencies 16K IPsec Tunnels 3. Apply Instability Conditions 4. Instability Phase Benchmarks* Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 3.5Gbps Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 0.5Gbps Unstable 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 Benchmarks Recovery Time = 22 seconds Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 4Gbps Recovered Latency = 110usec Recovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost = 0 Example Stress Test – Benchmarks DEVICE #2 1. Configuration Sets achieved 2. Startup Phase Benchmarks Stable Aggregate forwarding Rate = 4Gbps Stable Latency = 150 usec Stable Session Count = 30 BGP Peers 28 OSPF Adjacencies 16K IPsec Tunnels 3. Apply Instability Conditions 4. Instability Phase Benchmarks* Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate=3.3Gbps Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate= 0.7Gbps Unstable 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 Benchmarks Recovery Time= Infinite Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate = 3.9Gbps Recovered Latency = 150usec Recovered 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 3 rd Configuration Set to obtain a Recovery Time for Device #2