Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net
draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net
Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational March 16, 2017
Expires: September 17, 2017
Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their
Infrastructure
draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-05
Abstract
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally
conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
implementations of internetworking functions. This memo investigates
additional considerations when network functions are virtualized and
performed in general purpose hardware.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 17, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Considerations for Hardware and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Hardware Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Testing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Attention to Shared Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 8
4.3. New Benchmarks and Related Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Assessment of Benchmark Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Power Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Version history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
implementations of internetworking functions (or physical network
functions, PNFs). The Black-box Benchmarks of Throughput, Latency,
Forwarding Rates and others have served our industry for many years.
[RFC1242] and [RFC2544] are the cornerstones of the work.
An emerging set of service provider and vendor development goals is
to reduce costs while increasing flexibility of network devices, and
drastically accelerate their deployment. Network Function
Virtualization (NFV) has the promise to achieve these goals, and
therefore has garnered much attention. It now seems certain that
some network functions will be virtualized following the success of
cloud computing and virtual desktops supported by sufficient network
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
path capacity, performance, and widespread deployment; many of the
same techniques will help achieve NFV.
In the context of Virtualized Network Functions (VNF), the supporting
Infrastructure requires general-purpose computing systems, storage
systems, networking systems, virtualization support systems (such as
hypervisors), and management systems for the virtual and physical
resources. There will be many potential suppliers of Infrastructure
systems and significant flexibility in configuring the systems for
best performance. There are also many potential suppliers of VNFs,
adding to the combinations possible in this environment. The
separation of hardware and software suppliers has a profound
implication on benchmarking activities: much more of the internal
configuration of the black-box device under test (DUT) must now be
specified and reported with the results, to foster both repeatability
and comparison testing at a later time.
Consider the following User Story as further background and
motivation:
"I'm designing and building my NFV Infrastructure platform. The
first steps were easy because I had a small number of categories of
VNFs to support and the VNF vendor gave HW recommendations that I
followed. Now I need to deploy more VNFs from new vendors, and there
are different hardware recommendations. How well will the new VNFs
perform on my existing hardware? Which among several new VNFs in a
given category are most efficient in terms of capacity they deliver?
And, when I operate multiple categories of VNFs (and PNFs)
*concurrently* on a hardware platform such that they share resources,
what are the new performance limits, and what are the software design
choices I can make to optimize my chosen hardware platform?
Conversely, what hardware platform upgrades should I pursue to
increase the capacity of these concurrently operating VNFs?"
See http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv for
more background, for example, the white papers there may be a useful
starting place. The Performance and Portability Best Practices
[NFV.PER001] are particularly relevant to BMWG. There are documents
available in the Open Area http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/
Latest_Drafts/ including drafts describing Infrastructure aspects and
service quality.
2. Scope
At the time of this writing, BMWG is considering the new topic of
Virtual Network Functions and related Infrastructure to ensure that
common issues are recognized from the start, using background
materials from industry and SDOs (e.g., IETF, ETSI NFV).
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
This memo investigates additional methodological considerations
necessary when benchmarking VNFs instantiated and hosted in general-
purpose hardware, using bare metal hypervisors [BareMetal] or other
isolation environments such as Linux containers. An essential
consideration is benchmarking physical and virtual network functions
in the same way when possible, thereby allowing direct comparison.
Benchmarking combinations of physical and virtual devices and
functions in a System Under Test is another topic of keen interest.
A clearly related goal: the benchmarks for the capacity of a general-
purpose platform to host a plurality of VNF instances should be
investigated. Existing networking technology benchmarks will also be
considered for adaptation to NFV and closely associated technologies.
A non-goal is any overlap with traditional computer benchmark
development and their specific metrics (SPECmark suites such as
SPECCPU).
A continued non-goal is any form of architecture development related
to NFV and associated technologies in BMWG, consistent with all
chartered work since BMWG began in 1989.
3. Considerations for Hardware and Testing
This section lists the new considerations which must be addressed to
benchmark VNF(s) and their supporting infrastructure. The System
Under Test (SUT) is composed of the hardware platform components, the
VNFs installed, and many other supporting systems. It is critical to
document all aspects of the SUT to foster repeatability.
3.1. Hardware Components
New Hardware components will become part of the test set-up.
1. High volume server platforms (general-purpose, possibly with
virtual technology enhancements).
2. Storage systems with large capacity, high speed, and high
reliability.
3. Network Interface ports specially designed for efficient service
of many virtual NICs.
4. High capacity Ethernet Switches.
The components above are subjects for development of specialized
benchmarks which are focused on the special demands of network
function deployment.
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
Labs conducting comparisons of different VNFs may be able to use the
same hardware platform over many studies, until the steady march of
innovations overtakes their capabilities (as happens with the lab's
traffic generation and testing devices today).
3.2. Configuration Parameters
It will be necessary to configure and document the settings for the
entire general-purpose platform to ensure repeatability and foster
future comparisons, including but clearly not limited-to the
following:
o number of server blades (shelf occupation)
o CPUs
o caches
o memory
o storage system
o I/O
as well as configurations that support the devices which host the VNF
itself:
o Hypervisor (or other forms of virtual function hosting)
o Virtual Machine (VM)
o Infrastructure Virtual Network (which interconnects Virtual
Machines with physical network interfaces, or with each other
through virtual switches, for example)
and finally, the VNF itself, with items such as:
o specific function being implemented in VNF
o reserved resources for each function (e.g., CPU pinning and Non-
Uniform Memory Access, NUMA node assignment)
o number of VNFs (or sub-VNF components, each with its own VM) in
the service function chain (see section 1.1 of [RFC7498] for a
definition of service function chain)
o number of physical interfaces and links transited in the service
function chain
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
In the physical device benchmarking context, most of the
corresponding infrastructure configuration choices were determined by
the vendor. Although the platform itself is now one of the
configuration variables, it is important to maintain emphasis on the
networking benchmarks and capture the platform variables as input
factors.
3.3. Testing Strategies
The concept of characterizing performance at capacity limits may
change. For example:
1. It may be more representative of system capacity to characterize
the case where Virtual Machines (VM, hosting the VNF) are
operating at 50% Utilization, and therefore sharing the "real"
processing power across many VMs.
2. Another important case stems from the need for partitioning
functions. A noisy neighbor (VM hosting a VNF in an infinite
loop) would ideally be isolated and the performance of other VMs
would continue according to their specifications.
3. System errors will likely occur as transients, implying a
distribution of performance characteristics with a long tail
(like latency), leading to the need for longer-term tests of each
set of configuration and test parameters.
4. The desire for elasticity and flexibility among network functions
will include tests where there is constant flux in the number of
VM instances, the resources the VMs require, and the set-up/tear-
down of network paths that support VM connectivity. Requests for
and instantiation of new VMs, along with Releases for VMs hosting
VNFs that are no longer needed would be an normal operational
condition. In other words, benchmarking should include scenarios
with production life cycle management of VMs and their VNFs and
network connectivity in-progress, including VNF scaling up/down
operations, as well as static configurations.
5. All physical things can fail, and benchmarking efforts can also
examine recovery aided by the virtual architecture with different
approaches to resiliency.
6. The sheer number of test conditionas and configuration
combinations encourage increased efficiency, including automated
testing arrangements, combination sub-sampling through an
understanding of inter-relationships, and machine-readable test
results.
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
3.4. Attention to Shared Resources
Since many components of the new NFV Infrastructure are virtual, test
set-up design must have prior knowledge of inter-actions/dependencies
within the various resource domains in the System Under Test (SUT).
For example, a virtual machine performing the role of a traditional
tester function such as generating and/or receiving traffic should
avoid sharing any SUT resources with the Device Under Test DUT.
Otherwise, the results will have unexpected dependencies not
encountered in physical device benchmarking.
Note: The term "tester" has traditionally referred to devices
dedicated to testing in BMWG literature. In this new context,
"tester" additionally refers to functions dedicated to testing, which
may be either virtual or physical. "Tester" has never referred to
the individuals performing the tests.
The shared-resource aspect of test design remains one of the critical
challenges to overcome in a way to produce useful results.
Benchmarking set-ups may designate isolated resources for the DUT and
other critical support components (such as the host/kernel) as the
first baseline step, and add other loading processes. The added
complexity of each set-up leads to shared-resource testing scenarios,
where the characteristics of the competing load (in terms of memory,
storage, and CPU utilization) will directly affect the benchmarking
results (and variability of the results), but the results should
reconcile with the baseline.
The physical test device remains a solid foundation to compare with
results using combinations of physical and virtual test functions, or
results using only virtual testers when necessary to assess virtual
interfaces and other virtual functions.
4. Benchmarking Considerations
This section discusses considerations related to Benchmarks
applicable to VNFs and their associated technologies.
4.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions
In order to compare the performance of VNFs and system
implementations with their physical counterparts, identical
benchmarks must be used. Since BMWG has already developed
specifications for many network functions, there will be re-use of
existing benchmarks through references, while allowing for the
possibility of benchmark curation during development of new
methodologies. Consideration should be given to quantifying the
number of parallel VNFs required to achieve comparable scale/capacity
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale was
reached before the VNFs could achieve the comparable level. Again,
implementation based-on different hypervisors or other virtual
function hosting remain as critical factors in performance
assessment.
4.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks
When the network functions under test are based on Open Source code,
there may be a tendency to rely on internal measurements to some
extent, especially when the externally-observable phenomena only
support an inference of internal events (such as routing protocol
convergence observed in the dataplane). Examples include CPU/Core
utilization, Network utilization, Storage utilization, and Memory
Comitted/used. These "white-box" metrics provide one view of the
resource footprint of a VNF. Note: The resource utilization metrics
do not easily match the 3x4 Matrix, described in Section 4.4 below.
However, external observations remain essential as the basis for
Benchmarks. Internal observations with fixed specification and
interpretation may be provided in parallel (as auxilliary metrics),
to assist the development of operations procedures when the
technology is deployed, for example. Internal metrics and
measurements from Open Source implementations may be the only direct
source of performance results in a desired dimension, but
corroborating external observations are still required to assure the
integrity of measurement discipline was maintained for all reported
results.
A related aspect of benchmark development is where the scope includes
multiple approaches to a common function under the same benchmark.
For example, there are many ways to arrange for activation of a
network path between interface points and the activation times can be
compared if the start-to-stop activation interval has a generic and
unambiguous definition. Thus, generic benchmark definitions are
preferred over technology/protocol specific definitions where
possible.
4.3. New Benchmarks and Related Metrics
There will be new classes of benchmarks needed for network design and
assistance when developing operational practices (possibly automated
management and orchestration of deployment scale). Examples follow
in the paragraphs below, many of which are prompted by the goals of
increased elasticity and flexibility of the network functions, along
with accelerated deployment times.
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
o Time to deploy VNFs: In cases where the general-purpose hardware
is already deployed and ready for service, it is valuable to know
the response time when a management system is tasked with
"standing-up" 100's of virtual machines and the VNFs they will
host.
o Time to migrate VNFs: In cases where a rack or shelf of hardware
must be removed from active service, it is valuable to know the
response time when a management system is tasked with "migrating"
some number of virtual machines and the VNFs they currently host
to alternate hardware that will remain in-service.
o Time to create a virtual network in the general-purpose
infrastructure: This is a somewhat simplified version of existing
benchmarks for convergence time, in that the process is initiated
by a request from (centralized or distributed) control, rather
than inferred from network events (link failure). The successful
response time would remain dependent on dataplane observations to
confirm that the network is ready to perform.
o Effect of verification measurements on performance: A complete
VNF, or something as simple as a new policy to implement in a VNF,
is implemented. The action to verify instantiation of the VNF or
policy could affect performance during normal operation.
Also, it appears to be valuable to measure traditional packet
transfer performance metrics during the assessment of traditional and
new benchmarks, including metrics that may be used to support service
engineering such as the Spatial Composition metrics found in
[RFC6049]. Examples include Mean one-way delay in section 4.1 of
[RFC6049], Packet Delay Variation (PDV) in [RFC5481], and Packet
Reordering [RFC4737] [RFC4689].
4.4. Assessment of Benchmark Coverage
It can be useful to organize benchmarks according to their applicable
life cycle stage and the performance criteria they were designed to
assess. The table below (derived from [X3.102]) provides a way to
organize benchmarks such that there is a clear indication of coverage
for the intersection of life cycle stages and performance criteria.
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | |
| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY |
| | | | |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | |
| Activation | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | |
| Operation | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | |
| De-activation | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
For example, the "Time to deploy VNFs" benchmark described above
would be placed in the intersection of Activation and Speed, making
it clear that there are other potential performance criteria to
benchmark, such as the "percentage of unsuccessful VM/VNF stand-ups"
in a set of 100 attempts. This example emphasizes that the
Activation and De-activation life cycle stages are key areas for NFV
and related infrastructure, and encourage expansion beyond
traditional benchmarks for normal operation. Thus, reviewing the
benchmark coverage using this table (sometimes called the 3x3 matrix)
can be a worthwhile exercise in BMWG.
In one of the first applications of the 3x3 matrix in BMWG
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth], we discovered that
metrics on measured size, capacity, or scale do not easily match one
of the three columns above. Following discussion, this was resolved
in two ways:
o Add a column, Scale, for use when categorizing and assessing the
coverage of benchmarks (without measured results). Examples of
this use are found in
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth] and
[I-D.vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv]. This is the 3x4 Matrix.
o If using the matrix to report results in an organized way, keep
size, capacity, and scale metrics separate from the 3x3 matrix and
incorporate them in the report with other qualifications of the
results.
Note: The resource utilization (e.g., CPU) metrics do not fit in the
Matrix. They are not benchmarks, and omitting them confirms their
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
status as auxilliary metrics. Resource assignments are configuration
parameters, and these are reported seperately.
This approach encourages use of the 3x3 matrix to organize reports of
results, where the capacity at which the various metrics were
measured could be included in the title of the matrix (and results
for multiple capacities would result in separate 3x3 matrices, if
there were sufficient measurements/results to organize in that way).
For example, results for each VM and VNF could appear in the 3x3
matrix, organized to illustrate resource occupation (CPU Cores) in a
particular physical computing system, as shown below.
VNF#1
.-----------.
|__|__|__|__|
Core 1 |__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|
| | | | |
'-----------'
VNF#2
.-----------.
|__|__|__|__|
Cores 2-5 |__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|
| | | | |
'-----------'
VNF#3 VNF#4 VNF#5
.-----------. .-----------. .-----------.
|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
Core 6 |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
'-----------' '-----------' '-----------'
VNF#6
.-----------.
|__|__|__|__|
Core 7 |__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|
| | | | |
'-----------'
The combination of tables above could be built incrementally,
beginning with VNF#1 and one Core, then adding VNFs according to
their supporting core assignments. X-Y plots of critical benchmarks
would also provide insight to the effect of increased HW utilization.
All VNFs might be of the same type, or to match a production
environment there could be VNFs of multiple types and categories. In
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
this figure, VNFs #3-#5 are assumed to require small CPU resources,
while VNF#2 requires 4 cores to perform its function.
4.5. Power Consumption
Although there is incomplete work to benchmark physical network
function power consumption in a meaningful way, the desire to measure
the physical infrastructure supporting the virtual functions only
adds to the need. Both maximum power consumption and dynamic power
consumption (with varying load) would be useful. The IPMI standard
[IPMI2.0] has been implemented by many manufacturers, and supports
measurement of instantaneous energy consumption.
To assess the instantaneous energy consumption of virtual resources,
it may be possible to estimate the value using an overall metric
based on utilization readings, according to
[I-D.krishnan-nfvrg-policy-based-rm-nfviaas].
5. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
(DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
above.
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
6. IANA Considerations
No IANA Action is requested at this time.
7. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges an encouraging conversation on this topic
with Mukhtiar Shaikh and Ramki Krishnan in November 2013. Bhavani
Parise and Ilya Varlashkin have provided useful suggestions to expand
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
these considerations. Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan has already tried
the 3x3 matrix with SDN controller draft, and contributed to many
discussions. Scott Bradner quickly pointed out shared resource
dependencies in an early vSwitch measurement proposal, and the topic
was included here as a key consideration. Further development was
encouraged by Barry Constantine's comments following the IETF-92 BMWG
session: the session itself was an affirmation for this memo. There
have been many interesting contributions from Maryam Tahhan, Marius
Georgescu, Jacob Rapp, Saurabh Chattopadhyay, and others.
8. Version history
(This section should be removed by the RFC Editor.)
version 05: Address IESG & Last Call Comments (editorial)
Version 03 & 04: address mininal comments and few WGLC comments
Version 02:
New version history section.
Added Memory in section 3.2, configuration.
Updated ACKs and References.
Version 01:
Addressed Ramki Krishnan's comments on section 4.5, power, see that
section (7/27 message to the list). Addressed Saurabh
Chattopadhyay's 7/24 comments on VNF resources and other resource
conditions and their effect on benchmarking, see section 3.4.
Addressed Marius Georgescu's 7/17 comments on the list (sections 4.3
and 4.4).
AND, comments from the extended discussion during IETF-93 BMWG
session:
Section 4.2: VNF footprint and auxilliary metrics (Maryam Tahhan),
Section 4.3: Verification affect metrics (Ramki Krishnan);
Section 4.4: Auxilliary metrics in the Matrix (Maryam Tahhan, Scott
Bradner, others)
9. References
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
9.1. Normative References
[NFV.PER001]
"Network Function Virtualization: Performance and
Portability Best Practices", Group Specification ETSI GS
NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06), June 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana,
"Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic
Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, DOI 10.17487/RFC4689,
October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4689>.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.
[RFC7498] Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for
Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>.
9.2. Informative References
[BareMetal]
Popek, Gerald J.; Goldberg, Robert P. , , "Formal
requirements for virtualizable third generation
architectures". Communications of the ACM. 17 (7):
412-421. doi:10.1145/361011.361073.", 1974.
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth]
Vengainathan, B., Basil, A., Tassinari, M., Manral, V.,
and S. Banks, "Benchmarking Methodology for SDN Controller
Performance", draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-
meth-03 (work in progress), January 2017.
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking VNFs and Related Inf. March 2017
[I-D.krishnan-nfvrg-policy-based-rm-nfviaas]
Krishnan, R., Figueira, N., Krishnaswamy, D., Lopez, D.,
Wright, S., Hinrichs, T., Krishnaswamy, R., and A. Yerra,
"NFVIaaS Architectural Framework for Policy Based Resource
Placement and Scheduling", draft-krishnan-nfvrg-policy-
based-rm-nfviaas-06 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv]
Tahhan, M., O'Mahony, B., and A. Morton, "Benchmarking
Virtual Switches in OPNFV", draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-
opnfv-02 (work in progress), March 2016.
[IPMI2.0] "Intelligent Platform Management Interface, v2.0 with
latest Errata",
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/servers/ipmi/ipmi-
intelligent-platform-mgt-interface-spec-2nd-gen-v2-0-spec-
update.html, April 2015.
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.
[X3.102] ANSI X3.102, , "ANSI Standard on Data Communications,
User-Oriented Data Communications Framework", 1983.
Author's Address
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Morton Expires September 17, 2017 [Page 15]
