[bmwg] Comments on draft-skommu-bmwg-nvp-02
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Sun, 02 September 2018 14:56 UTC
Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F9A12F18C; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 07:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Q41WPk9-Sxq; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 07:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F4521274D0; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 07:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w82EtJBK006907; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 10:56:33 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2m84q1u7nr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 02 Sep 2018 10:56:32 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w82EuVUi088595; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:56:31 -0500
Received: from zlp30497.vci.att.com (zlp30497.vci.att.com [135.46.181.156]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w82EuSdE088574; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:56:29 -0500
Received: from zlp30497.vci.att.com (zlp30497.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30497.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id B41D740141EC; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:56:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30497.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 9179340141EB; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:56:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w82EuSVW021787; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:56:28 -0500
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w82EuNP3021508; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:56:24 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E7EE1C19; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 10:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 10:55:56 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: "draft-skommu-bmwg-nvp@ietf.org" <draft-skommu-bmwg-nvp@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-skommu-bmwg-nvp-02
Thread-Index: AdRCykdCeCeQml5+RbOXErY0w5Zr0A==
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF547EBBBF@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [107.77.224.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-09-02_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809020168
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/7bXGxyINQC-GCNHA9kNLRcRR5sg>
Subject: [bmwg] Comments on draft-skommu-bmwg-nvp-02
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:56:39 -0000
Hi Samuel and Jacob, below are the comments I promised on your draft (most sections through 5). regards, Al (as a participant) 2. Conventions used in this document [acm] There's a new version of this paragraph, see RFC 8137 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. the new version clarifies that capitalization is needed for requirements, and includes the word "NOT RECOMMENDED". Segment 1 Packet 1 +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+ | Headers | | Headers | | +---------------------+ | | +---------------------+ | | | Pay Load - upto 64K | | | | Pay Load < 1500 | | | +---------------------+ | | +---------------------+ | +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+ [acm] s/Pay Load/Payload/ Hence, normal benchmarking methods are not relevant to the NVPs. [acm] So far, the only differences I see are - TSO for TCP (layer 4) - LRO with large payloads. But we've dealt with Stateful traffic before (TCP connections in Firewalls). I need to think about how 64k packets affects what we do, it certainly makes BW the main event, and not header-processing rate. Essentially, I'm looking to help add more definition and differentiation for the Scope of this draft. With Micro-services architecture, a single web app of the three tier application model could now have 100s of smaller apps dedicated to do just one job. These 100s of small one responsibility only services will MUST be secured into their own segment - hence pushing the scale boundaries of the overlay from both simple segmentation perspective and also from a security perspective. [acm] Micro-services means a fairly complete departure from the monolithic architectures of the past. Some include Micro-services as an aspect of Cloud-native NFV, where containers are king (although, you haven't mentioned containers yet, why not?). So there is some NVP-NFV overlap here, too. 4. Scope This document does not address Network Function Virtualization has been covered already by previous IETF documents (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual- net/?include_text=1) the focus of this document is Network Virtualization Platform where the network functions are an intrinsic part of the hypervisor's TCP stack, working closer to the application layer and leveraging performance optimizations such TSO/RSS provided by the TCP stack and the underlying hardware. [acm] Is this really a hypervisor, or a container management system? [acm] the next sentence is a key one for the comment that follows: ... Because of the nature of virtual infrastructures and multiple elements being hosted on the same physical infrastructure, influence from other components cannot be completely ruled out. For example, unlike in physical infrastructures, logical routing or distributed firewall MUST NOT be benchmarked independent of logical switching. System Under Test definition MUST include all components involved with that particular test. Kommu & Rapp Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft NVP Benchmarking Considerations June 2018 +---------------------------------------------------+ | System Under Test | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | | Hyper-Visor | | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | | | | NVP | | | | | +-----+ | Switch/ | +-----+ | | | | | VM1 |<------>| Router/ |<------>| VM2 | | | | | +-----+ VW | Fire Wall/ | VW +-----+ | | | | | etc., | | | | | +-------------+ | | | | Legend | | | | VM: Virtual Machine | | | | VW: Virtual Wire | | | +------------------------_----------------------+ | +---------------------------------------------------+ Figure 2 Intra-Host System Under Test [acm] Figure 2 is not realistic IMO, there should be at least one Physical Interface in the path under test. Further, this is exactly the sort of testing discussed in RFC 8204 (and the controversial China Mobile draft that used VM traffic Generators). (I think we have used NFVI (Infrastructure) synonymously with your NVP.) [acm] Need to show the Physical NICs in Figure 3 Kommu & Rapp Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft NVP Benchmarking Considerations June 2018 +---------------------------------------------------+ | System Under Test | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | | Hyper-Visor | | | | +-------------+ | | | | | NVP | | | | | +-----+ | Switch/ | +-----+ | | | | | VM1 |<------>| Router/ |<------>| VM2 | | | | | +-----+ VW | Fire Wall/ | VW +-----+ | | | | | etc., | | | | | +-------------+ | | | +------------------------_----------------------+ | | ^ | | | Network Cabling | | v | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | | Physical Networking Components | | | | switches, routers, firewalls etc., | | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | ^ | | | Network Cabling | | v | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | | Hyper-Visor | | | | +-------------+ | | | | | NVP | | | | | +-----+ | Switch/ | +-----+ | | | | | VM1 |<------>| Router/ |<------>| VM2 | | | | | +-----+ VW | Fire Wall/ | VW +-----+ | | | | | etc., | | | | | +-------------+ | | | +------------------------_----------------------+ | +---------------------------------------------------+ Legend VM: Virtual Machine VW: Virtual Wire Figure 3 Inter-Host System Under Test
- [bmwg] Comments on draft-skommu-bmwg-nvp-02 MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)