Transcript PPT Version

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 66th 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