PPT Version

advertisement

IPv6 Benchmarking

Methodology

Ciprian Popoviciu, Ahmed Hamza,

Gunter Van de Velde, Diego

Dugatkin

IETF 69, July 22nd 2007

Chicago draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 1

Agenda

 Overview

 Last Call Review

 Last Call Discussion

 Next steps draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 2

“A document providing guidance in the area of IPv6 benchmarking would be welcome to organizations (including the

US federal agencies mandated to deploy IPv6 on their backbone networks) attempting to understand why and how network device

IPv6 performance must be tested. A document that attempts to define which areas need to considered and which describes how to test/benchmark these areas may be well received.” Bill Cerveny

Overview:

Complements RFC2544 by:

Adds benchmarking methodology recommendations that address specific aspects of IPv6 protocol architecture

Provide an updated list of benchmarks based on the experience gained with applying the RFC2544 recommendations to IPv4

Adds information related to SONET as a popular media type not mentioned by RFC2544

Went through several rounds of review within BMWG and v6ops WG draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 3

Overview (cont.)

Interest

 Expressed by networking and test tool vendors

 There is at least one implementation of the draft in a benchmarking suite

 Used in benchmarking related to the OMB and

DoD IPv6 mandates.

Timeline

 Voted WG Working Item during the Montreal

IETF 66 th meeting

 Currently in final WG Last Call until August 10 draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 4

Last Call Review

Official Last Call reviews by:

 Scott Bradner

Bill Cerveny

Rajiv Asati

All points made by the reviewers are addressed in version: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02

The reviews and the resolution of points made are documented at: http://home.comcast.net/%7Eacmacm/BMWG/IPv6-meth-comment-resolution.pdf

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 5

Last Call Discussion

Additional comments and recommendations from:

 David Newman (

Topic: maximum throughput

)

 Dan Romascanu, Scott Bradner, David Newman (

Topic: jumbo frames

)

Timmons Player, Curtis Villamizar, Scott Bradner (

Topic: back-to-back test

)

Scott Bradner (

Topic: throughput definition )

All these topics were addressed as documented in: http://home.comcast.net/%7Eacmacm/BMWG/IPv6-meth-comment-resolution.pdf

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 6

Last Call Discussion (Cont.)

One open item:

 David Newman (

Topic: SONET minimum frame size and accounting for the presence of signature fields in packets )

Proposed resolution:

 Ethernet: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518 bytes

SONET: 47, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048, 4096 bytes

Include a note for the following topics:

- 47 was chosen as the limit case

- how to select a minimum frame size to include the signature field draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 7

IPv6 Benchmarking test suite:

Vendor implementation

 RFC2544/IPv6 Benchmark

Suite, based on this IETF draft

 Traffic Setup enhancements

 IP/IPv6 dual stack

 Test Setup Additions

 IPv6 Extension Headers

 IP/IPv6 traffic ratio draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 8

IPv6 Benchmarking test suite:

Vendor implementation

Signature = PatternSignature (4B)

PacketGroupID

SequenceNumber

DataIntegrityChecksum

+

+

+

+

TimeStamp

(default 20 B) = (variable size 2 to 12, default 4B) +

(optional field, fixed-size = 4 Bytes) +

(optional field, fixed-size = 4 Bytes) +

(optional field, fixed-size = 2 Bytes) +

(optional field, fixed-size = 6 Bytes) draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 9

Next Steps

The draft is currently in a final Last Call for the period:

14 July 2007 through 10 August 2007

Next Steps:

 Reach agreement on the last open item: minimum frame size for SONET and inclusion of signature field

Include any additional comments

Deliver the final version of the draft for publication draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 10

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02

THANK YOU!

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 11

Document Goals:

 Address a very acute and growing need for recommendations on evaluating network element performance for IPv6 deployments

 A complement rather than a replacement of

RFC2544 in accordance with BMWG strategy

 Provide the additional, IPv6 specific guidelines to

IP benchmarking while indicating the aspects of

RFC2544 that are IP version independent

 Maintain the structure and spirit of RFC2544.

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 12

WG Feedback:

List of Reviewers from BMWG and V6OPS WGs :

Scott Bradner, Al Morton, Fred Baker, Pekka

Savola, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Benoit

Lourdelet, Daniel Roesen, Jerry Perser, William

Cerveny , Athanassios Liakopoulos, Rajiv Papneja,

Sven Lanckmans, Silvija Dry, Aamer Akhter, Rajiv

Asati, David Newman, Jim Mcquaid, Timmons

Player, Miles McCredie, Curtis Villamizar.

IPv6 and Test tools experts reviewed and provided valuable feedback off the BMWG alias.

Thank you to all reviewers!

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02 13

Download