Re: [bmwg] An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices -- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00.txt

Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Sat, 23 May 2020 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 3D0433A0C61 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2020 05:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 9elfXZHkcOaC for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2020 05:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (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 714123A0C57 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 May 2020 05:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (host-79-121-42-113.kabelnet.hu [79.121.42.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04NCSabf030453 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 May 2020 14:28:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-42-113.kabelnet.hu [79.121.42.113] claimed to be [192.168.1.135]
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
References: <158995996438.13925.2934780472900149847@ietfa.amsl.com> <14002442-9713-d474-8012-bca5dcd6976c@hit.bme.hu> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0108A5BA22@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Lencse_G=c3=a1bor?= <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <598e85fd-cf9b-1cdd-61c0-3a76623145f9@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 14:28:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0108A5BA22@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.42.113; helo=[192.168.1.135]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/rWQduCu7NrrOQXHVkXMTpUgFiAo>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices -- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 23 May 2020 12:28:53 -0000

Dear Al Morton,

Thank you very much for your reply and for all the references! I was not 
aware of them and now I see that they have already solved several of the 
issues we wanted to handle. (Even some issues, which we did not mention 
in the draft, but I had in my mind, like using a high number of 
different source port numbers for the tests.)

I am sorry for incorrectly using the word "bis" in the filename without 
proper understanding its meaning. I wanted to say something like 
"upgrade" / "update" / "amend", but not something like "replace" / 
"rewrite" / "reissue", which seems to be the meaning of "bis" according 
to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9105639/httpbis-what-does-bis-mean
We will not use the word "bis" in the consecutive versions of our draft.

As for the non-overlapping areas of our draft and the documents you 
cited, I have not found anything in them about our suggestion for 
"Improved Throughput and Frame Loss Rate Measurement Procedures using 
Individual Frame Timeout".

If you think this one joins well into your efforts to update RFC 2544, 
then we could focus on this one first, and deal with some others later 
one by one in (in different documents).

What do you think of it?

Best regards,

Gábor




2020.05.22. 23:50 keltezéssel, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) írta:
> Hi Gábor Lencse,
>
> Thanks for your message and the draft you wrote with Keiichi Shima.
> I remember you from the draft that Marius Georgescu led in BMWG,
> resulting in RFC 8219.
>
> The BMWG has been updating areas of RFC 2544 as we determine the need
> for better procedures. This practice began with RFC 4814 [0] in 2007
> (Hash and Stuffing), and continued with RFC 5180 [1] for IPv6. Many
> others have followed. RFC 8219 is yet another example.
>
> BMWG has had some help keeping RFC 2544 up to date. The ETSI ISG on
> Network Function Virtualization has a Testing and Open Source Working
> Group. This WG has prepared and frequently updated their specification
> containing many of the topics you propose, but not all. The Specification
> is TST009 [2], and it directly deals with your proposed topic of:
> "An Optional Non-zero Frame Loss Acceptance Criterion for the
> Throughput Measurement  Procedure". The TST009 benchmark "Throughput" is
> equivalent to the RFC2544 Throughput (zero loss), and the TST009 (clause 8)
> Metric Variant of "Capacity with X% Loss Ratio" covers the non-zero
> loss case.  Besides Section 26.1 of RFC 2544 (Throughput),
> TST009 clauses 9 and 10 go on to expand Section 26.2 (Latency),
> and RFC 2544 26.3 (Frame Loss Rate) expanded in TST009 clause 11 (Loss).
> Each TST009 clause contains one Benchmark and several Metric Variants.
>
> Getting back to BMWG's own updates, RFC 2544 Section 26.6 (System Resets)
> was updated by RFC 6201. It also seems to me that RFC 2544
> Section 26.5 (System Recovery) was treated more completely in a
> recent effort, but reference escapes me at the moment.
>
> The astute reader has noticed that I skipped over RFC 2544 Section 26.4
> (Back-to-back Frame Benchmark) until now. BMWG has work in progress
> to update Section 26.4 [3], and we have discussed this draft at our
> May 15 Interim meeting and again on the list this week.
>
> Updates for another RFC 2544 Section, Section 24 on Trial Duration
> are included in ETSI NFV TST009 [2] clause 12.3, with other work
> in progress under consideration in the BMWG: Multiple Loss Ratio Search [4]
> and Probabilistic Loss Ratio Search [5].
>
> This was, by no means, an exhaustive roadmap to benchmarking best practices.
> However, after revisiting all the RFC 2544 Section updates above,
> I conclude:
>
> 1. that there is benefit in some of the work you propose, specifically
> "Requirement of Statistically Relevant Number of Tests", and perhaps
> some of "the Novelties of RFC8219" could be generalized, if not covered
> by the work discussed and cited above.
>
> 2. some of the work you proposed joins with current efforts to update
> sections of RFC 2544, but it does not constitute a "RFC 2544-bis"
> by any means (as the file name indicates; I suggest to change the file
> name in the next release to make this more clear and maybe separate
> the draft in two or more specific topics).
>
> So, in summary, I encourage your work in non-overlapping areas.
>
> best regards,
> Al
> (as a participant)
>
>
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4814/
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5180/
>
> [2] https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-TST/001_099/009/03.02.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030201p.pdf
>
> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-02
>
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-03
>
> [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-03
>
>
>
> From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lencse Gábor
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:38 AM
> To: bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [bmwg] An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices -- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00.txt
>
> Dear BMWG List Members!
>
> On the basis of our experience with RFC 8219, we have made four recommendations to upgrade RFC 2544 in our new draft "An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices".
>
> Could you please read and comment it?
>
> It is really short: we tried to summarize the essence of our recommendations. We are happy to work out the details, if there is interest / support in BMWG.
>
> Any feedback is welcome!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gábor Lencse
>
>
> -------- Továbbított üzenet --------
> Tárgy:
> New Version Notification for draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00.txt
> Dátum:
> Wed, 20 May 2020 00:32:44 -0700
> Feladó:
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Címzett:
> Gabor Lencse <lencse@hit.bme.hu>hu>, Keiichi Shima <keiichi@iijlab.net>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Gabor Lencse and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis
> Revision: 00
> Title: An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
> Document date: 2020-05-20
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 9
> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis/
> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00
> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis
>
>
> Abstract:
> RFC 2544 has defined a benchmarking methodology for network
> interconnect devices. We recommend a few upgrades to it for
> producing more reasonable results. The recommended upgrades can be
> classified into two categories: the application of the novelties of
> RFC 8219 for the legacy RFC 2544 use cases and the following new
> ones. Checking a reasonably small timeout individually for every
> single frame in the throughput and frame loss rate benchmarking
> procedures. Performing a statistically relevant number of tests for
> all benchmarking procedures. Addition of an optional non-zero frame
> loss acceptance criterion for the throughput measurement procedure
> and defining its reporting format.
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>