diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc8456.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8456.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8456.txt | 3587 |
1 files changed, 3587 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8456.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8456.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1be0bff --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8456.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3587 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) V. Bhuvaneswaran +Request for Comments: 8456 A. Basil +Category: Informational Veryx Technologies +ISSN: 2070-1721 M. Tassinari + Hewlett Packard Enterprise + V. Manral + NanoSec + S. Banks + VSS Monitoring + October 2018 + + + Benchmarking Methodology for Software-Defined Networking (SDN) + Controller Performance + +Abstract + + This document defines methodologies for benchmarking the control- + plane performance of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Controllers. + The SDN Controller is a core component in the SDN architecture that + controls the behavior of the network. SDN Controllers have been + implemented with many varying designs in order to achieve their + intended network functionality. Hence, the authors of this document + have taken the approach of considering an SDN Controller to be a + black box, defining the methodology in a manner that is agnostic to + protocols and network services supported by controllers. This + document provides a method for measuring the performance of all + controller implementations. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents + approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8456. + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2018 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 + (https://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 ....................................................4 + 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4 + 2. Scope ...........................................................4 + 3. Test Setup ......................................................4 + 3.1. Test Setup - Controller Operating in Standalone Mode .......5 + 3.2. Test Setup - Controller Operating in Cluster Mode ..........6 + 4. Test Considerations .............................................7 + 4.1. Network Topology ...........................................7 + 4.2. Test Traffic ...............................................7 + 4.3. Test Emulator Requirements .................................7 + 4.4. Connection Setup ...........................................8 + 4.5. Measurement Point Specification and Recommendation .........9 + 4.6. Connectivity Recommendation ................................9 + 4.7. Test Repeatability .........................................9 + 4.8. Test Reporting .............................................9 + 5. Benchmarking Tests .............................................11 + 5.1. Performance ...............................................11 + 5.1.1. Network Topology Discovery Time ....................11 + 5.1.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time ...............13 + 5.1.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate ...............14 + 5.1.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time ....................17 + 5.1.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time ...................19 + 5.1.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate ....................21 + 5.1.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate ...................23 + 5.1.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time .............25 + 5.2. Scalability ...............................................26 + 5.2.1. Control Sessions Capacity ..........................26 + 5.2.2. Network Discovery Size .............................27 + 5.2.3. Forwarding Table Capacity ..........................29 + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + 5.3. Security ..................................................31 + 5.3.1. Exception Handling .................................31 + 5.3.2. Handling Denial-of-Service Attacks .................32 + 5.4. Reliability ...............................................34 + 5.4.1. Controller Failover Time ...........................34 + 5.4.2. Network Re-provisioning Time .......................36 + 6. IANA Considerations ............................................37 + 7. Security Considerations ........................................38 + 8. References .....................................................38 + 8.1. Normative References ......................................38 + 8.2. Informative References ....................................38 + Appendix A. Benchmarking Methodology Using OpenFlow Controllers ...39 + A.1. Protocol Overview ..........................................39 + A.2. Messages Overview ..........................................39 + A.3. Connection Overview ........................................39 + A.4. Performance Benchmarking Tests .............................40 + A.4.1. Network Topology Discovery Time ........................40 + A.4.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time ...................42 + A.4.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate ...................43 + A.4.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time ........................44 + A.4.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time .......................46 + A.4.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate ........................47 + A.4.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate .......................49 + A.4.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time .................50 + A.5. Scalability ................................................51 + A.5.1. Control Sessions Capacity ..............................51 + A.5.2. Network Discovery Size .................................52 + A.5.3. Forwarding Table Capacity ..............................54 + A.6. Security ...................................................55 + A.6.1. Exception Handling .....................................55 + A.6.2. Handling Denial-of-Service Attacks .....................57 + A.7. Reliability ................................................59 + A.7.1. Controller Failover Time ...............................59 + A.7.2. Network Re-provisioning Time ...........................61 + Acknowledgments ...................................................63 + Authors' Addresses ................................................64 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +1. Introduction + + This document provides generic methodologies for benchmarking + Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Controller performance. To achieve + the desired functionality, an SDN Controller may support many + northbound and southbound protocols, implement a wide range of + applications, and work either alone or as part of a group. This + document considers an SDN Controller to be a black box, regardless of + design and implementation. The tests defined in this document can be + used to benchmark an SDN Controller for performance, scalability, + reliability, and security, independently of northbound and southbound + protocols. Terminology related to benchmarking SDN Controllers is + described in the companion terminology document [RFC8455]. These + tests can be performed on an SDN Controller running as a virtual + machine (VM) instance or on a bare metal server. This document is + intended for those who want to measure an SDN Controller's + performance as well as compare the performance of various SDN + Controllers. + +1.1. Conventions Used in This Document + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in + BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + +2. Scope + + This document defines a methodology for measuring the networking + metrics of SDN Controllers. For the purpose of this memo, the SDN + Controller is a function that manages and controls Network Devices. + Any SDN Controller without a control capability is out of scope for + this memo. The tests defined in this document enable the + benchmarking of SDN Controllers in two ways: standalone mode + (a standalone controller) and cluster mode (a cluster of homogeneous + controllers). These tests are recommended for execution in lab + environments rather than in live network deployments. Performance + benchmarking of a federation of controllers (i.e., a set of SDN + Controllers) managing different domains, is beyond the scope of this + document. + +3. Test Setup + + As noted above, the tests defined in this document enable the + measurement of an SDN Controller's performance in standalone mode and + cluster mode. This section defines common reference topologies that + are referred to in individual tests described later in this document. + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +3.1. Test Setup - Controller Operating in Standalone Mode + + +-----------------------------------------------------------+ + | Application-Plane Test Emulator | + | | + | +-----------------+ +-------------+ | + | | Application | | Service | | + | +-----------------+ +-------------+ | + | | + +-----------------------------+(I2)-------------------------+ + | + | (Northbound Interface) + +-------------------------------+ + | +----------------+ | + | | SDN Controller | | + | +----------------+ | + | | + | Device Under Test (DUT) | + +-------------------------------+ + | (Southbound Interface) + | + +-----------------------------+(I1)-------------------------+ + | | + | +-----------+ +-------------+ | + | | Network | | Network | | + | | Device 2 |--..-| Device n - 1| | + | +-----------+ +-------------+ | + | / \ / \ | + | / \ / \ | + | l0 / X \ ln | + | / / \ \ | + | +-----------+ +-----------+ | + | | Network | | Network | | + | | Device 1 |..| Device n | | + | +-----------+ +-----------+ | + | | | | + | +---------------+ +---------------+ | + | | Test Traffic | | Test Traffic | | + | | Generator | | Generator | | + | | (TP1) | | (TP2) | | + | +---------------+ +---------------+ | + | | + | Forwarding-Plane Test Emulator | + +-----------------------------------------------------------+ + + Figure 1 + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +3.2. Test Setup - Controller Operating in Cluster Mode + + +-----------------------------------------------------------+ + | Application-Plane Test Emulator | + | | + | +-----------------+ +-------------+ | + | | Application | | Service | | + | +-----------------+ +-------------+ | + | | + +-----------------------------+(I2)-------------------------+ + | + | (Northbound Interface) + +---------------------------------------------------------+ + | | + | +------------------+ +------------------+ | + | | SDN Controller 1 | <--E/W--> | SDN Controller n | | + | +------------------+ +------------------+ | + | | + | Device Under Test (DUT) | + +---------------------------------------------------------+ + | (Southbound Interface) + | + +-----------------------------+(I1)-------------------------+ + | | + | +-----------+ +-------------+ | + | | Network | | Network | | + | | Device 2 |--..-| Device n - 1| | + | +-----------+ +-------------+ | + | / \ / \ | + | / \ / \ | + | l0 / X \ ln | + | / / \ \ | + | +-----------+ +-----------+ | + | | Network | | Network | | + | | Device 1 |..| Device n | | + | +-----------+ +-----------+ | + | | | | + | +---------------+ +---------------+ | + | | Test Traffic | | Test Traffic | | + | | Generator | | Generator | | + | | (TP1) | | (TP2) | | + | +---------------+ +---------------+ | + | | + | Forwarding-Plane Test Emulator | + +-----------------------------------------------------------+ + + Figure 2 + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +4. Test Considerations + +4.1. Network Topology + + The test cases SHOULD use Leaf-Spine topology with at least two + Network Devices in the topology for benchmarking. Test traffic + generators TP1 and TP2 SHOULD be connected to the leaf Network + Device 1 and the leaf Network Device n. To achieve a complete + performance characterization of the SDN Controller, it is recommended + that the controller be benchmarked for many network topologies and a + varying number of Network Devices. Further, care should be taken to + make sure that a loop-prevention mechanism is enabled in either the + SDN Controller or the network when the topology contains redundant + network paths. + +4.2. Test Traffic + + Test traffic is used to notify the controller about the asynchronous + arrival of new flows. The test cases SHOULD use frame sizes of 128, + 512, and 1508 bytes for benchmarking. Tests using jumbo frames are + optional. + +4.3. Test Emulator Requirements + + The test emulator SHOULD timestamp the transmitted and received + control messages to/from the controller on the established network + connections. The test cases use these values to compute the + controller processing time. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +4.4. Connection Setup + + There may be controller implementations that support unencrypted and + encrypted network connections with Network Devices. Further, the + controller may be backward compatible with Network Devices running + older versions of southbound protocols. It may be useful to measure + the controller's performance with one or more applicable connection + setup methods defined below. For cases with encrypted communications + between the controller and the switch, key management and key + exchange MUST take place before any performance or benchmark + measurements. + + 1. Unencrypted connection with Network Devices, running the same + protocol version. + + 2. Unencrypted connection with Network Devices, running different + protocol versions. + + Examples: + + a. Controller running current protocol version and switch + running older protocol version. + + b. Controller running older protocol version and switch + running current protocol version. + + 3. Encrypted connection with Network Devices, running the same + protocol version. + + 4. Encrypted connection with Network Devices, running different + protocol versions. + + Examples: + + a. Controller running current protocol version and switch + running older protocol version. + + b. Controller running older protocol version and switch + running current protocol version. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +4.5. Measurement Point Specification and Recommendation + + The accuracy of the measurements depends on several factors, + including the point of observation where the indications are + captured. For example, the notification can be observed at the + controller or test emulator. The test operator SHOULD make the + observations/measurements at the interfaces of the test emulator, + unless explicitly specified otherwise in the individual test. In any + case, the locations of measurement points MUST be reported. + +4.6. Connectivity Recommendation + + The SDN Controller in the test setup SHOULD be connected directly + with the forwarding-plane and management-plane test emulators to + avoid any delays or failure introduced by the intermediate devices + during benchmarking tests. When the controller is implemented as a + virtual machine, details of the physical and logical connectivity + MUST be reported. + +4.7. Test Repeatability + + To increase confidence in the measured results, it is recommended + that each test SHOULD be repeated a minimum of 10 times. + +4.8. Test Reporting + + Each test has a reporting format that contains some global and + identical reporting components, and some individual components that + are specific to individual tests. The following parameters for test + configuration and controller settings MUST be reflected in the test + report. + + Test Configuration Parameters: + + 1. Controller name and version + + 2. Northbound protocols and versions + + 3. Southbound protocols and versions + + 4. Controller redundancy mode (standalone or cluster mode) + + 5. Connection setup (unencrypted or encrypted) + + 6. Network Device type (physical, virtual, or emulated) + + 7. Number of nodes + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + 8. Number of links + + 9. Data-plane test traffic type + + 10. Controller system configuration (e.g., physical or virtual + machine, CPU, memory, caches, operating system, interface + speed, storage) + + 11. Reference test setup (e.g., the setup shown in Section 3.1) + + Parameters for Controller Settings: + + 1. Topology rediscovery timeout + + 2. Controller redundancy mode (e.g., active-standby) + + 3. Controller state persistence enabled/disabled + + To ensure the repeatability of the test, the following capabilities + of the test emulator SHOULD be reported: + + 1. Maximum number of Network Devices that the forwarding plane + emulates + + 2. Control message processing time (e.g., topology discovery + messages) + + One way to determine the above two values is to simulate the required + control sessions and messages from the control plane. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5. Benchmarking Tests + +5.1. Performance + +5.1.1. Network Topology Discovery Time + + Objective: + + Measure the time taken by the controller(s) to determine the + complete network topology, defined as the interval starting with + the first discovery message from the controller(s) at its + southbound interface and ending with all features of the static + topology determined. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST support network discovery. + + 2. The tester should be able to retrieve the discovered topology + information through either the controller's management + interface or northbound interface to determine if the discovery + was successful and complete. + + 3. Ensure that the controller's topology rediscovery timeout has + been set to the maximum value, to avoid initiation of the + rediscovery process in the middle of the test. + + Procedure: + + 1. Ensure that the controller is operational and that its network + applications, northbound interface, and southbound interface + are up and running. + + 2. Establish the network connections between the controller and + the Network Devices. + + 3. Record the time for the first discovery message (Tm1) received + from the controller at the forwarding-plane test emulator + interface (I1). + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + 4. Query the controller every t seconds (the RECOMMENDED value for + t is 3) to obtain the discovered network topology information + through the northbound interface or the management interface, + and compare it with the deployed network topology information. + + 5. Stop the trial when the discovered topology information matches + the deployed network topology or when the discovered topology + information returns the same details for three consecutive + queries. + + 6. Record the time for the last discovery message (Tmn) sent to + the controller from the forwarding-plane test emulator + interface (I1) when the trial completes successfully (e.g., + when the topology matches). + + Measurements: + + Topology Discovery Time (DT1) = Tmn - Tm1 + + DT1 + DT2 + DT3 .. DTn + Average Topology Discovery Time (TDm) = ----------------------- + Total Trials + + SUM[SQUAREOF(DTi - TDm)] + Topology Discovery Time Variance (TDv) = ------------------------ + Total Trials - 1 + + Reporting Format: + + The Topology Discovery Time results MUST be reported in tabular + format, with a row for each successful iteration. The last row of + the table indicates the Topology Discovery Time variance, and the + previous row indicates the Average Topology Discovery Time. + + If this test is repeated with a varying number of nodes over the + same topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a + graph. The X coordinate SHOULD be the number of nodes (N), and + the Y coordinate SHOULD be the Average Topology Discovery Time. + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.1.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time + + Objective: + + Measure the time taken by the controller(s) to process an + asynchronous message, defined as the interval starting with an + asynchronous message from a Network Device after the discovery of + all the devices by the controller(s) and ending with a response + message from the controller(s) at its southbound interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisite: + + The controller MUST have successfully completed the network + topology discovery for the connected Network Devices. + + Procedure: + + 1. Generate asynchronous messages from every connected Network + Device to the SDN Controller, one at a time in series from the + forwarding-plane test emulator for the Trial Duration. + + 2. Record every request transmit time (T1) and the corresponding + response received time (R1) at the forwarding-plane test + emulator interface (I1) for every successful message exchange. + + Measurements: + + Asynchronous Message Processing Time (APT1) = + SUM{Ri} - SUM{Ti} + ----------------------- + Nrx + + Where Nrx is the total number of successful messages exchanged. + + Average Asynchronous Message Processing Time = + APT1 + APT2 + APT3 .. APTn + -------------------------- + Total Trials + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Asynchronous Message Processing Time Variance (TAMv) = + SUM[SQUAREOF(APTi - TAMm)] + -------------------------- + Total Trials - 1 + + Where TAMm is the Average Asynchronous Message Processing Time. + + Reporting Format: + + The Asynchronous Message Processing Time results MUST be reported + in tabular format, with a row for each iteration. The last row of + the table indicates the Asynchronous Message Processing Time + variance, and the previous row indicates the Average Asynchronous + Message Processing Time. + + The report SHOULD capture the following information, in addition + to the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8: + + - Successful messages exchanged (Nrx) + + - Percentage of unsuccessful messages exchanged, computed + using the formula ((1 - Nrx/Ntx) * 100), where Ntx is the + total number of messages transmitted to the controller + + If this test is repeated with a varying number of nodes with the + same topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a + graph. The X coordinate SHOULD be the number of nodes (N), and + the Y coordinate SHOULD be the Average Asynchronous Message + Processing Time. + +5.1.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate + + Objective: + + Measure the number of responses to asynchronous messages (a new + flow arrival notification message, link down, etc.) for which the + controller(s) performed processing and replied with a valid and + productive (non-trivial) response message. + + Using a single procedure, this test will measure the following two + benchmarks on the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate (see + Section 2.3.1.3 of [RFC8455]): + + 1. Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate + + 2. Loss-Free Asynchronous Message Processing Rate + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Here, two benchmarks are determined through a series of trials + where the number of messages sent to the controller(s) and the + responses received from the controller(s) are counted over the + Trial Duration. The message response rate and the Message Loss + Ratio are calculated for each trial. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller(s) MUST have successfully completed the network + topology discovery for the connected Network Devices. + + 2. Choose and record the Trial Duration (Td), the sending rate + STEP size, the tolerance on equality for two consecutive trials + (P%), and the maximum possible message-sending rate (Ntx1/Td). + + Procedure: + + 1. Generate asynchronous messages continuously at the maximum + possible rate on the established connections from all the + emulated/simulated Network Devices for the given Trial + Duration (Td). + + 2. Record the total number of responses received (Nrx1) from the + controller as well as the number of messages sent (Ntx1) to the + controller within the Trial Duration (Td). + + 3. Calculate the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate (APR1) and + the Message Loss Ratio (Lr1). Ensure that the controller(s) + has returned to normal operation. + + 4. Repeat the trial by reducing the asynchronous message-sending + rate used in the last trial by the STEP size. + + 5. Continue repeating the trials and reducing the sending rate + until both the maximum value of Nrxn (number of responses + received from the controller) and the Nrxn corresponding to a + Loss Ratio of zero have been found. + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + 6. The trials corresponding to the benchmark levels MUST be + repeated using the same asynchronous message rates until the + responses received from the controller are equal (+/-P%) for + two consecutive trials. + + 7. Record the number of responses received (Nrxn) from the + controller as well as the number of messages sent (Ntxn) to the + controller in the last trial. + + Measurements: + + Nrxn + Asynchronous Message Processing Rate (APRn) = ----- + Td + + Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate = MAX(APRn) for all n + + Nrxn + Asynchronous Message Loss Ratio (Lrn) = 1 - ----- + Ntxn + + Loss-Free Asynchronous Message Processing Rate = MAX(APRn) + given Lrn = 0 + + Reporting Format: + + The Asynchronous Message Processing Rate results MUST be reported + in tabular format, with a row for each trial. + + The table should report the following information, in addition to + the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8, with + columns: + + - Offered rate (Ntxn/Td) + + - Asynchronous Message Processing Rate (APRn) + + - Loss Ratio (Lr) + + - Benchmark at this iteration (blank for none, Maximum + Asynchronous Message Processing Rate, Loss-Free Asynchronous + Message Processing Rate) + + The results MAY be presented in the form of a graph. The X axis + SHOULD be the offered rate, and dual Y axes would represent the + Asynchronous Message Processing Rate and the Loss Ratio, + respectively. + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + If this test is repeated with a varying number of nodes over the + same topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a + graph. The X axis SHOULD be the number of nodes (N), and the + Y axis SHOULD be the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate. Both + the Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate and the Loss-Free + Asynchronous Message Processing Rate should be plotted for each N. + +5.1.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time + + Objective: + + Measure the time taken by the controller to set up a path + reactively between source and destination nodes, defined as the + interval starting with the first flow provisioning request message + received by the controller(s) at its southbound interface and + ending with the last flow provisioning response message sent from + the controller(s) at its southbound interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. The number of + Network Devices in the path is a parameter of the test that may be + varied from two to the maximum discovery size in repetitions of + this test. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information + for the deployed network topology. + + 2. The controller should know the location of the destination + endpoint for which the path has to be provisioned. This can be + achieved through dynamic learning or static provisioning. + + 3. Ensure that the default action for "flow miss" in the Network + Device is configured to "send to controller". + + 4. Ensure that each Network Device in a path requires the + controller to make the forwarding decision while paving the + entire path. + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Procedure: + + 1. Send a single traffic stream from test traffic generator TP1 to + test traffic generator TP2. + + 2. Record the time of the first flow provisioning request message + sent to the controller (Tsf1) from the Network Device at the + forwarding-plane test emulator interface (I1). + + 3. Wait for the arrival of the first traffic frame at the endpoint + (i.e., test traffic generator TP2) or the expiry of the Trial + Duration (Td). + + 4. Record the time of the last flow provisioning response message + received from the controller (Tdf1) to the Network Device at + the forwarding-plane test emulator interface (I1). + + Measurements: + + Reactive Path Provisioning Time (RPT1) = Tdf1 - Tsf1 + + Average Reactive Path Provisioning Time = + RPT1 + RPT2 + RPT3 .. RPTn + -------------------------- + Total Trials + + Reactive Path Provisioning Time Variance (TRPv) = + SUM[SQUAREOF(RPTi - TRPm)] + -------------------------- + Total Trials - 1 + + Where TRPm is the Average Reactive Path Provisioning Time. + + Reporting Format: + + The Reactive Path Provisioning Time results MUST be reported in + tabular format, with a row for each iteration. The last row of + the table indicates the Reactive Path Provisioning Time variance, + and the previous row indicates the Average Reactive Path + Provisioning Time. + + The report should capture the following information, in addition + to the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8: + + - Number of Network Devices in the path + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.1.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time + + Objective: + + Measure the time taken by the controller to set up a path + proactively between source and destination nodes, defined as the + interval starting with the first proactive flow provisioned in the + controller(s) at its northbound interface and ending with the last + flow provisioning response message sent from the controller(s) at + its southbound interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information + for the deployed network topology. + + 2. The controller should know the location of the destination + endpoint for which the path has to be provisioned. This can be + achieved through dynamic learning or static provisioning. + + 3. Ensure that the default action for "flow miss" in the Network + Device is "drop". + + Procedure: + + 1. Send a single traffic stream from test traffic generator TP1 to + test traffic generator TP2. + + 2. Install the flow entries so that the traffic travels from test + traffic generator TP1 until it reaches test traffic + generator TP2 through the controller's northbound interface or + management interface. + + 3. Wait for the arrival of the first traffic frame at test traffic + generator TP2 or the expiry of the Trial Duration (Td). + + 4. Record the time when the proactive flow is provisioned in the + controller (Tsf1) at the management-plane test emulator + interface (I2). + + 5. Record the time of the last flow provisioning message received + from the controller (Tdf1) at the forwarding-plane test + emulator interface (I1). + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Measurements: + + Proactive Flow Provisioning Time (PPT1) = Tdf1 - Tsf1 + + Average Proactive Path Provisioning Time = + PPT1 + PPT2 + PPT3 .. PPTn + -------------------------- + Total Trials + + Proactive Path Provisioning Time Variance (TPPv) = + SUM[SQUAREOF(PPTi - TPPm)] + -------------------------- + Total Trials - 1 + + Where TPPm is the Average Proactive Path Provisioning Time. + + Reporting Format: + + The Proactive Path Provisioning Time results MUST be reported in + tabular format, with a row for each iteration. The last row of + the table indicates the Proactive Path Provisioning Time variance, + and the previous row indicates the Average Proactive Path + Provisioning Time. + + The report should capture the following information, in addition + to the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8: + + - Number of Network Devices in the path + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.1.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate + + Objective: + + Measure the maximum number of independent paths a controller can + concurrently establish per second between source and destination + nodes reactively, defined as the number of paths provisioned per + second by the controller(s) at its southbound interface for the + flow provisioning requests received for path provisioning at its + southbound interface between the start of the test and the expiry + of the given Trial Duration. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information + for the deployed network topology. + + 2. The controller should know the location of destination + addresses for which the paths have to be provisioned. This can + be achieved through dynamic learning or static provisioning. + + 3. Ensure that the default action for "flow miss" in the Network + Device is configured to "send to controller". + + 4. Ensure that each Network Device in a path requires the + controller to make the forwarding decision while provisioning + the entire path. + + Procedure: + + 1. Send traffic with unique source and destination addresses from + test traffic generator TP1. + + 2. Record the total number of unique traffic frames (Ndf) received + at test traffic generator TP2 within the Trial Duration (Td). + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Measurements: + + Ndf + Reactive Path Provisioning Rate (RPR1) = ------ + Td + + Average Reactive Path Provisioning Rate = + RPR1 + RPR2 + RPR3 .. RPRn + -------------------------- + Total Trials + + Reactive Path Provisioning Rate Variance (RPPv) = + SUM[SQUAREOF(RPRi - RPPm)] + -------------------------- + Total Trials - 1 + + Where RPPm is the Average Reactive Path Provisioning Rate. + + Reporting Format: + + The Reactive Path Provisioning Rate results MUST be reported in + tabular format, with a row for each iteration. The last row of + the table indicates the Reactive Path Provisioning Rate variance, + and the previous row indicates the Average Reactive Path + Provisioning Rate. + + The report should capture the following information, in addition + to the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8: + + - Number of Network Devices in the path + + - Offered rate + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.1.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate + + Objective: + + Measure the maximum number of independent paths a controller can + concurrently establish per second between source and destination + nodes proactively, defined as the number of paths provisioned per + second by the controller(s) at its southbound interface for the + paths requested in its northbound interface between the start of + the test and the expiry of the given Trial Duration. The + measurement is based on data-plane observations of successful path + activation. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information + for the deployed network topology. + + 2. The controller should know the location of destination + addresses for which the paths have to be provisioned. This can + be achieved through dynamic learning or static provisioning. + + 3. Ensure that the default action for "flow miss" in the Network + Device is "drop". + + Procedure: + + 1. Send traffic continuously with unique source and destination + addresses from test traffic generator TP1. + + 2. Install corresponding flow entries so that the traffic travels + from simulated sources at test traffic generator TP1 until it + reaches the simulated destinations at test traffic + generator TP2 through the controller's northbound interface or + management interface. + + 3. Record the total number of unique traffic frames (Ndf) received + at test traffic generator TP2 within the Trial Duration (Td). + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Measurements: + + Ndf + Proactive Path Provisioning Rate (PPR1) = ------ + Td + + Average Proactive Path Provisioning Rate = + PPR1 + PPR2 + PPR3 .. PPRn + -------------------------- + Total Trials + + Proactive Path Provisioning Rate Variance (PPPv) = + SUM[SQUAREOF(PPRi - PPPm)] + ------------------------- + Total Trials - 1 + + Where PPPm is the Average Proactive Path Provisioning Rate. + + Reporting Format: + + The Proactive Path Provisioning Rate results MUST be reported in + tabular format, with a row for each iteration. The last row of + the table indicates the Proactive Path Provisioning Rate variance, + and the previous row indicates the Average Proactive Path + Provisioning Rate. + + The report should capture the following information, in addition + to the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8: + + - Number of Network Devices in the path + + - Offered rate + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.1.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time + + Objective: + + Measure the amount of time taken by the controller to detect any + changes in the network topology, defined as the interval starting + with the notification message received by the controller(s) at its + southbound interface and ending with the first topology + rediscovery message sent from the controller(s) at its southbound + interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST have successfully discovered the network + topology information for the deployed network topology. + + 2. The periodic network discovery operation should be configured + to twice the Trial Duration (Td) value. + + Procedure: + + 1. Trigger a topology change event by bringing down an active + Network Device in the topology. + + 2. Record the time when the first topology change notification is + sent to the controller (Tcn) at the forwarding-plane test + emulator interface (I1). + + 3. Stop the trial when the controller sends the first topology + rediscovery message to the Network Device or the expiry of the + Trial Duration (Td). + + 4. Record the time when the first topology rediscovery message is + received from the controller (Tcd) at the forwarding-plane test + emulator interface (I1). + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Measurements: + + Network Topology Change Detection Time (TDT1) = Tcd - Tcn + + Average Network Topology Change Detection Time = + TDT1 + TDT2 + TDT3 .. TDTn + -------------------------- + Total Trials + + Network Topology Change Detection Time Variance (NTDv) = + SUM[SQUAREOF(TDTi - NTDm)] + -------------------------- + Total Trials - 1 + + Where NTDm is the Average Network Topology Change + Detection Time. + + Reporting Format: + + The Network Topology Change Detection Time results MUST be + reported in tabular format, with a row for each iteration. The + last row of the table indicates the Network Topology Change + Detection Time variance, and the previous row indicates the + Average Network Topology Change Detection Time. + +5.2. Scalability + +5.2.1. Control Sessions Capacity + + Objective: + + Measure the maximum number of control sessions the controller can + maintain, defined as the number of sessions that the controller + can accept from Network Devices, starting with the first control + session and ending with the last control session that the + controller(s) accepts at its southbound interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + None + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Procedure: + + 1. Establish control connections with the controller from every + Network Device emulated in the forwarding-plane test emulator. + + 2. Stop the trial when the controller starts dropping the control + connections. + + 3. Record the number of successful connections established (CCn) + with the controller at the forwarding-plane test emulator. + + Measurement: + + Control Sessions Capacity = CCn + + Reporting Format: + + The Control Sessions Capacity results MUST be reported in addition + to the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8. + +5.2.2. Network Discovery Size + + Objective: + + Measure the network size (number of nodes, links, and hosts) that + a controller can discover, defined as the size of a network that + the controller(s) can discover, starting with a network topology + provided by the user for discovery and ending with the number of + nodes, links, and hosts that the controller(s) were able to + successfully discover. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller MUST support automatic network discovery. + + 2. The tester should be able to retrieve the discovered topology + information through either the controller's management + interface or northbound interface. + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Procedure: + + 1. Establish the network connections between the controller and + the network nodes. + + 2. Query the controller every t seconds (the RECOMMENDED value for + t is 30) to obtain the discovered network topology information + through the northbound interface or the management interface. + + 3. Stop the trial when the discovered network topology information + remains the same as that of the last two query responses. + + 4. Compare the obtained network topology information with the + deployed network topology information. + + 5. If the comparison is successful, increase the number of nodes + by 1 and repeat the trial. + If the comparison is unsuccessful, decrease the number of nodes + by 1 and repeat the trial. + + 6. Continue the trial until the comparison (step 5) is successful. + + 7. Record the number of nodes for the last trial run (Ns) where + the topology comparison was successful. + + Measurement: + + Network Discovery Size = Ns + + Reporting Format: + + The Network Discovery Size results MUST be reported in addition to + the configuration parameters captured per Section 4.8. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 28] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.2.3. Forwarding Table Capacity + + Objective: + + Measure the maximum number of flow entries a controller can manage + in its Forwarding Table. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. The controller's Forwarding Table should be empty. + + 2. "Flow idle time" MUST be set to a higher or infinite value. + + 3. The controller MUST have successfully completed network + topology discovery. + + 4. The tester should be able to retrieve the Forwarding Table + information through either the controller's management + interface or northbound interface. + + Procedures: + + o Reactive Flow Provisioning Mode: + + 1. Send bidirectional traffic continuously with unique source + and destination addresses from test traffic generators TP1 + and TP2 at the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate of the + controller. + + 2. Query the controller at a regular interval (e.g., every + 5 seconds) for the number of learned flow entries from its + northbound interface. + + 3. Stop the trial when the retrieved value is constant for + three consecutive iterations, and record the value received + from the last query (Nrp). + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 29] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + o Proactive Flow Provisioning Mode: + + 1. Install unique flows continuously through the controller's + northbound interface or management interface until a failure + response is received from the controller. + + 2. Record the total number of successful responses (Nrp). + + Note: + + Some controller designs for Proactive Flow Provisioning mode + may require the switch to send flow setup requests in order to + generate flow setup responses. In such cases, it is + recommended to generate bidirectional traffic for the + provisioned flows. + + Measurements: + + Proactive Flow Provisioning Mode: + + Max Flow Entries = Total number of flows provisioned (Nrp) + + Reactive Flow Provisioning Mode: + + Max Flow Entries = Total number of learned flow entries (Nrp) + + Forwarding Table Capacity = Max Flow Entries + + Reporting Format: + + The Forwarding Table Capacity results MUST be tabulated with the + following information, in addition to the configuration parameters + captured per Section 4.8: + + - Provisioning Type (Proactive/Reactive) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 30] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.3. Security + +5.3.1. Exception Handling + + Objective: + + Determine the effects of handling error packets and notifications + on performance tests. The impact MUST be measured for the + following performance tests: + + 1. Path Provisioning Rate + + 2. Path Provisioning Time + + 3. Network Topology Change Detection Time + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. This test MUST be performed after obtaining the baseline + measurement results for the performance tests listed above. + + 2. Ensure that the invalid messages are not dropped by the + intermediate devices connecting the controller and Network + Devices. + + Procedure: + + 1. Perform the above-listed performance tests, and send 1% of the + messages from the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate test + (Section 5.1.3) as invalid messages from the connected Network + Devices emulated at the forwarding-plane test emulator. + + 2. Perform the above-listed performance tests, and send 2% of the + messages from the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate test + (Section 5.1.3) as invalid messages from the connected Network + Devices emulated at the forwarding-plane test emulator. + + Note: + + Invalid messages can be frames with incorrect protocol fields or + any form of failure notifications sent towards the controller. + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 31] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Measurements: + + Measurements MUST be done as per the equation defined in the + "Measurements" section of the corresponding test listed under + "Objective". + + Reporting Format: + + The Exception Handling results MUST be reported in tabular format, + with a column for each of the below parameters and row for each of + the above-listed performance tests: + + - Without Exceptions + + - With 1% Exceptions + + - With 2% Exceptions + +5.3.2. Handling Denial-of-Service Attacks + + Objective: + + Determine the effects of handling DoS attacks on performance and + scalability tests. The impact MUST be measured for the following + tests: + + 1. Path Provisioning Rate + + 2. Path Provisioning Time + + 3. Network Topology Change Detection Time + + 4. Network Discovery Size + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisite: + + This test MUST be performed after obtaining the baseline + measurement results for the performance tests listed above. + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 32] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Procedure: + + Perform the above-listed tests, and launch a DoS attack towards + the controller while the trial is running. + + Note: DoS attacks can be launched on one of the following + interfaces: + + 1. Northbound (e.g., query for flow entries continuously on the + northbound interface) + + 2. Management (e.g., Ping requests to the controller's + management interface) + + 3. Southbound (e.g., TCP SYN messages on the southbound + interface) + + Measurements: + + Measurements MUST be done as per the equation defined in the + "Measurements" section of the corresponding test listed under + "Objective". + + Reporting Format: + + The results regarding the handling of DoS attacks MUST be reported + in tabular format, with a column for each of the below parameters + and a row for each of the above-listed tests. + + - Without any attacks + + - With attacks + + The report should also specify the nature of the attack and the + interface in question. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 33] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.4. Reliability + +5.4.1. Controller Failover Time + + Objective: + + Measure the time taken to switch from an active controller to the + backup controller when the controllers work in redundancy mode and + the active controller fails, defined as the interval starting when + the active controller is brought down and ending with the first + rediscovery message received from the new controller at its + southbound interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use the test setup illustrated in Section 3.2 of + this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. Master controller election MUST be completed. + + 2. Nodes are connected to the controller cluster per the + implemented redundancy mode (e.g., active-standby). + + 3. The controller cluster should have successfully completed the + network topology discovery. + + 4. The Network Device MUST send all new flows to the controller + when it receives them from the test traffic generator. + + 5. The controller should have learned the location of the + destination (D1) at test traffic generator TP2. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 34] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Procedure: + + 1. Send unidirectional traffic continuously with incremental + sequence numbers and source addresses from test traffic + generator TP1 at the rate at which the controller can process + the traffic without any drops. + + 2. Ensure that there are no packet drops observed at test traffic + generator TP2. + + 3. Bring down the active controller. + + 4. Stop the trial when the first frame after the failover + operation is received on test traffic generator TP2. + + 5. Record the time at which the last valid frame was received (T1) + at test traffic generator TP2 before the sequence error and the + time at which the first valid frame was received (T2) after the + sequence error at test traffic generator TP2. + + Measurements: + + Controller Failover Time = (T2 - T1) + + Packet Loss = Number of missing packet sequences + + Reporting Format: + + The Controller Failover Time results MUST be tabulated with the + following information: + + - Number of cluster nodes + + - Redundancy mode + + - Controller Failover Time + + - Packet Loss + + - Cluster keep-alive interval + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 35] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +5.4.2. Network Re-provisioning Time + + Objective: + + Measure the time taken by the controller to reroute traffic when + there is a failure in existing traffic paths, defined as the + interval starting with the first failure notification message + received by the controller and ending with the last flow + re-provisioning message sent by the controller at its southbound + interface. + + Reference Test Setup: + + This test SHOULD use one of the test setups illustrated in + Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this document. + + Prerequisites: + + 1. A network with a specified number of nodes and redundant paths + MUST be deployed. + + 2. The controller MUST know the location of test traffic + generators TP1 and TP2. + + 3. Ensure that the controller does not pre-provision the alternate + path in the emulated Network Devices at the forwarding-plane + test emulator. + + Procedure: + + 1. Send bidirectional traffic continuously with a unique sequence + number from test traffic generators TP1 and TP2. + + 2. Bring down a link or switch in the traffic path. + + 3. Stop the trial after receiving the first frame after network + reconvergence. + + 4. Record the time of the last received frame prior to the frame + loss at test traffic generator TP2 (TP2-Tlfr) and the time of + the first frame received after the frame loss at test traffic + generator TP2 (TP2-Tffr). There must be a gap in sequence + numbers of these frames. + + 5. Record the time of the last received frame prior to the frame + loss at test traffic generator TP1 (TP1-Tlfr) and the time of + the first frame received after the frame loss at test traffic + generator TP1 (TP1-Tffr). + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 36] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Measurements: + + Forward Direction Path Re-provisioning Time (FDRT) + = (TP2-Tffr - TP2-Tlfr) + + Reverse Direction Path Re-provisioning Time (RDRT) + = (TP1-Tffr - TP1-Tlfr) + + Network Re-provisioning Time = (FDRT + RDRT)/2 + + Forward Direction Packet Loss = Number of missing sequence frames + at test traffic generator TP1 + + Reverse Direction Packet Loss = Number of missing sequence frames + at test traffic generator TP2 + + Reporting Format: + + The Network Re-provisioning Time results MUST be tabulated with + the following information: + + - Number of nodes in the primary path + + - Number of nodes in the alternate path + + - Network Re-provisioning Time + + - Forward Direction Packet Loss + + - Reverse Direction Packet Loss + +6. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 37] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +7. Security Considerations + + The benchmarking tests described in this document are limited to the + performance characterization of controllers in a lab environment with + isolated networks. + + 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 controller. + + Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the controller specifically + for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security + arising from the controller SHOULD be identical in the lab and in + production networks. + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in + RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. + + [RFC8455] Bhuvaneswaran, V., Basil, A., Tassinari, M., Manral, V., + and S. Banks, "Terminology for Benchmarking + Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Controller Performance", + RFC 8455, DOI 10.17487/RFC8455, October 2018, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8455>. + +8.2. Informative References + + [OpenFlow-Spec] + ONF, "OpenFlow Switch Specification" Version 1.4.0 (Wire + Protocol 0x05), October 2013, + <https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/ + uploads/2014/10/openflow-spec-v1.4.0.pdf>. + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 38] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +Appendix A. Benchmarking Methodology Using OpenFlow Controllers + + This section gives an overview of the OpenFlow protocol + [OpenFlow-Spec] and provides a test methodology for benchmarking SDN + Controllers supporting the OpenFlow southbound protocol. The + OpenFlow protocol is used as an example to illustrate the + methodologies defined in this document. + +A.1. Protocol Overview + + OpenFlow [OpenFlow-Spec] is an open standard protocol defined by the + Open Networking Foundation (ONF) and used for programming the + forwarding plane of network switches or routers via a centralized + controller. + +A.2. Messages Overview + + The OpenFlow protocol supports three message types -- namely, + controller-to-switch, asynchronous, and symmetric. + + Controller-to-switch messages are initiated by the controller and + used to directly manage or inspect the state of the switch. These + messages allow controllers to query/configure the switch ("features" + messages, configuration messages), collect information from a switch + (Read-State messages), send packets on a specified port of a switch + (OFPT_PACKET_OUT messages), and modify the switch forwarding plane + and state (Modify-State messages, Role-Request messages, etc.). + + Asynchronous messages are generated by the switch without a + controller soliciting them. These messages allow switches to update + controllers to denote an arrival of a new flow (OFPT_PACKET_IN + messages), switch state changes ("flow-removed" messages, port-status + messages), and errors (Error messages). + + Symmetric messages are generated in either direction without + solicitation. These messages allow switches and controllers to set + up a connection (Hello messages), verify liveness (Echo messages), + and offer additional functionalities (Experimenter messages). + +A.3. Connection Overview + + The OpenFlow channel is used to exchange OpenFlow messages between an + OpenFlow switch and an OpenFlow controller. The OpenFlow channel + connection can be set up using plain TCP or TLS. By default, a + switch establishes a single connection with the SDN Controller. A + switch may establish multiple parallel connections to a single + controller (auxiliary connection) or multiple controllers to handle + controller failures and load balancing. + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 39] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.4. Performance Benchmarking Tests + +A.4.1. Network Topology Discovery Time + + Procedure: + + Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Controller Application + | | | + | |<Initialize controller | + | |app., NB and SB interfaces>| + | | | + |<Deploy network with | | + | given no. of OF switches> | | + | | | + | OFPT_HELLO Exchange | | + |<-------------------------->| | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_OUT with LLDP| | + | to all switches| | + (Tm1)|<---------------------------| | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_IN with LLDP| | + | rcvd from Switch 1| | + |--------------------------->| | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_IN with LLDP| | + | rcvd from Switch 2| | + |--------------------------->| | + | . | | + | . | | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_IN with LLDP| | + | rcvd from Switch n| | + (Tmn)|--------------------------->| | + | | | + | | <Wait for the expiry of| + | | the Trial Duration (Td)>| + | | | + | | Query the controller for| + | | discovered n/w topo. (Di)| + | |<--------------------------| + | | | + | | <Compare the discovered| + | | n/w topology and the| + | | offered n/w topology>| + | | | + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 40] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + NB: Northbound + SB: Southbound + OF: OpenFlow + OFP: OpenFlow Protocol + LLDP: Link-Layer Discovery Protocol + Tm1: Time of reception of first LLDP message from controller + Tmn: Time of last LLDP message sent to controller + + Discussion: + + The Network Topology Discovery Time can be obtained by calculating + the time difference between the first OFPT_PACKET_OUT with an LLDP + message received from the controller (Tm1) and the last + OFPT_PACKET_IN with an LLDP message sent to the controller (Tmn) + when the comparison is successful. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 41] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.4.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time + + Procedure: + + Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Controller Application + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_IN with single | | + |OFP match header | | + (T0)|--------------------------->| | + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_OUT with single | | + | OFP action header | | + (R0)|<---------------------------| | + | . | | + | . | | + | . | | + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_IN with single | | + |OFP match header | | + (Tn)|--------------------------->| | + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_OUT with single | | + | OFP action header | | + (Rn)|<---------------------------| | + | | | + |<Wait for the expiry of the | | + |Trial Duration> | | + | | | + |<Record the number of | | + |OFPT_PACKET_INs/ | | + |OFPT_PACKET_OUTs | | + |exchanged (Nrx)> | | + | | | + + Legend: + + T0,T1, ..Tn: transmit timestamps of OFPT_PACKET_IN messages + R0,R1, ..Rn: receive timestamps of OFPT_PACKET_OUT messages + Nrx: Number of successful OFPT_PACKET_IN/OFPT_PACKET_OUT + message exchanges + + Discussion: + + The Asynchronous Message Processing Time will be obtained by + calculating the sum of ((R0 - T0),(R1 - T1)..(Rn - Tn))/Nrx. + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 42] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.4.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate + + Procedure: + + Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Controller Application + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_IN with single | | + |OFP match header | | + |--------------------------->| | + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_OUT with single | | + | OFP action header | | + |<---------------------------| | + | | | + | . | | + | . | | + | . | | + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_IN with single | | + |OFP match header | | + |--------------------------->| | + | | | + |OFPT_PACKET_OUT with single | | + | OFP action header | | + |<---------------------------| | + | | | + |<Repeat the steps until | | + |the expiry of the | | + |Trial Duration> | | + | | | + |<Record the number of OFP | | + (Ntx1)|match headers sent> | | + | | | + |<Record the number of OFP | | + (Nrx1)|action headers rcvd> | | + | | | + + Note: The Ntx1 on initial trials should be greater than Nrx1. + Repeat the trials until the Nrxn for two consecutive trials equals + (+/-P%). + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 43] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Discussion: + + Using a single procedure, this test will measure two benchmarks: + + 1. The Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate will be + obtained by calculating the maximum OFPT_PACKET_OUTs (Nrxn) + received from the controller(s) across n trials. + + 2. The Loss-Free Asynchronous Message Processing Rate will be + obtained by calculating the maximum OFPT_PACKET_OUTs + received from the controller(s) when the Loss Ratio equals + zero. The Loss Ratio is obtained by calculating + 1 - Nrxn/Ntxn. + +A.4.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time + + Procedure: + + Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow + Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller + | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1) | | + | |--------------------->| | + | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1) | + | | |-------------------->| + | | | | + |Traffic (S1,D1) | | + (Tsf1)|----------------------------------->| | + | | | | + | | | | + | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1,D1)| + | | |-------------------->| + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(D1) | + | | |<--------------------| + | | | | + | |Traffic (S1,D1) | | + | (Tdf1)|<---------------------| | + | | | | + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 44] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + Tsf1: Time of first frame sent from TP1 + Tdf1: Time of first frame received from TP2 + + Discussion: + + The Reactive Path Provisioning Time can be obtained by finding the + time difference between the transmit and receive times of the + traffic (Tsf1 - Tdf1). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 45] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.4.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time + + Procedure: + + Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application + | | | | | + | | | | | + | | | |<Install flow| + | | | | for S1,D1> | + | |G-ARP (D1) | | | + | |-------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1)| | + | | |----------------->| | + | | | | | + |Traffic (S1,D1) | | | + (Tsf1)|--------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(D1) | | + | | |<-----------------| | + | | | | | + | |Traffic (S1,D1)| | | + | (Tdf1)|<--------------| | | + | | | | | + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + Tsf1: Time of first frame sent from TP1 + Tdf1: Time of first frame received from TP2 + + Discussion: + + The Proactive Path Provisioning Time can be obtained by finding + the time difference between the transmit and receive times of the + traffic (Tsf1 - Tdf1). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 46] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.4.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate + + Procedure: + + Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow + Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller + | | | | + | | | | + | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | + | |--------------------| | + | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)| + | | |--------------------->| + | | | | + |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | + |--------------------------------->| | + | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1..Sn,| + | | | D1..Dn)| + | | |--------------------->| + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(S1) | + | | |<---------------------| + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(D1) | + | | |<---------------------| + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(S2) | + | | |<---------------------| + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(D2) | + | | |<---------------------| + | | | . | + | | | . | + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(Sn) | + | | |<---------------------| + | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(Dn) | + | | |<---------------------| + | | | | + | | Traffic (S1..Sn, | | + | | D1..Dn)| | + | |<-------------------| | + | | | | + | | | | + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 47] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + D1..Dn: Destination Endpoint 1, Destination Endpoint 2 ..., + Destination Endpoint n + S1..Sn: Source Endpoint 1, Source Endpoint 2 ..., + Source Endpoint n + + Discussion: + + The Reactive Path Provisioning Rate can be obtained by finding the + total number of frames received at test traffic generator TP2 + after the Trial Duration. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 48] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.4.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate + + Procedure: + + Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application + | | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | | + | |--------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN | | + | | | (D1..Dn)| | + | | |---------------->| | + | | | | | + |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | | + (Tsf1)|---------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | | |<Install flow| + | | | | for S1,D1> | + | | | | | + | | | | . | + | | | |<Install flow| + | | | | for Sn,Dn> | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(S1) | | + | | |<----------------| | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(D1) | | + | | |<----------------| | + | | | | | + | | | . | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(Sn) | | + | | |<----------------| | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(Dn) | | + | | |<----------------| | + | | | | | + | |Traffic (S1..Sn,| | | + | | D1..Dn)| | | + | (Tdf1)|<---------------| | | + | | | | | + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 49] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + D1..Dn: Destination Endpoint 1, Destination Endpoint 2 ..., + Destination Endpoint n + S1..Sn: Source Endpoint 1, Source Endpoint 2 ..., + Source Endpoint n + + Discussion: + + The Proactive Path Provisioning Rate can be obtained by finding + the total number of frames received at test traffic generator TP2 + after the Trial Duration. + +A.4.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time + + Procedure: + + Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Controller Application + | | | + | | <Bring down a link in | + | | Switch S1>| + | | | + T0 |PORT_STATUS with link down | | + | from S1 | | + |--------------------------->| | + | | | + |First OFPT_PACKET_OUT with | | + |LLDP to OF switch | | + T1 |<---------------------------| | + | | | + | | <Record time of first| + | | OFPT_PACKET_OUT with| + | | LLDP T1>| + | | | + + Discussion: + + The Network Topology Change Detection Time can be obtained by + finding the difference between the time that OpenFlow Switch S1 + sends the PORT_STATUS message (T0) and the time that the OpenFlow + controller sends the first topology rediscovery message (T1) to + OpenFlow switches. + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 50] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.5. Scalability + +A.5.1. Control Sessions Capacity + + Procedure: + + Network Devices OpenFlow + Controller + | | + | OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch 1 | + |<------------------------------------->| + | | + | OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch 2 | + |<------------------------------------->| + | . | + | . | + | . | + | OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch n | + |X<----------------------------------->X| + | | + + Discussion: + + The value of Switch (n - 1) will provide the Control Sessions + Capacity. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 51] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.5.2. Network Discovery Size + + Procedure: + + Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Controller Application + | | | + | | <Deploy network with | + | |given no. of OF switches N>| + | | | + | OFPT_HELLO Exchange | | + |<-------------------------->| | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_OUT with LLDP| | + | to all switches | | + |<---------------------------| | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_IN with LLDP| | + | rcvd from Switch 1| | + |--------------------------->| | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_IN with LLDP| | + | rcvd from Switch 2| | + |--------------------------->| | + | . | | + | . | | + | | | + | OFPT_PACKET_IN with LLDP| | + | rcvd from Switch n| | + |--------------------------->| | + | | | + | | <Wait for the expiry of| + | | the Trial Duration (Td)>| + | | | + | | Query the controller for| + | | discovered n/w topo. (N1)| + | |<--------------------------| + | | | + | | <If N1==N, repeat Step 1| + | | with N + 1 nodes| + | | until N1<N >| + | | | + | | <If N1<N, repeat Step 1 | + | | with N=N1 nodes once and | + | | exit> | + | | | + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 52] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + n/w topo: Network topology + OF: OpenFlow + + Discussion: + + The value of N1 provides the Network Discovery Size value. The + Trial Duration can be set to the stipulated time within which the + user expects the controller to complete the discovery process. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 53] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.5.3. Forwarding Table Capacity + + Procedure: + + Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow SDN + Generator TP1 Controller Application + | | | | + | | | | + |G-ARP (H1..Hn) | | | + |---------------->| | | + | | | | + | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)| | + | |--------------------->| | + | | | | + | | |<Wait for 5 secs>| + | | | | + | | | <Query for FWD | + | | | entry> |(F1) + | | | | + | | |<Wait for 5 secs>| + | | | | + | | | <Query for FWD | + | | | entry> |(F2) + | | | | + | | |<Wait for 5 secs>| + | | | | + | | | <Query for FWD | + | | | entry> |(F3) + | | | | + | | | <Repeat Step 2 | + | | |until F1==F2==F3>| + | | | | + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + H1..Hn: Host 1 .. Host n + FWD: Forwarding Table + + Discussion: + + Query the controller's Forwarding Table entries multiple times, + until three consecutive queries return the same value. The last + value retrieved from the controller will provide the Forwarding + Table Capacity value. The query interval is user configurable. + The interval of 5 seconds shown in this example is for + representational purposes. + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 54] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.6. Security + +A.6.1. Exception Handling + +Procedure: + +Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow SDN +Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application + | | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | | + | |--------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)| | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | | + |-------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1..Sa,| | + | | | D1..Da)| | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN | | + | | | (Sa+1..Sn,| | + | | | Da+1..Dn)| | + | | | (1% incorrect OFP| | + | | | match header)| | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(D1..Dn)| | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(S1..Sa)| | + | | | OFP headers| | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | |Traffic (S1..Sa,| | | + | | D1..Da)| | | + | |<---------------| | | + | | | | | + | | | | <Wait for the| + | | | | expiry of the| + | | | | Trial| + | | | | Duration>| + | | | | | + | | | | <Record Rx| + | | | | frames at| + | | | | TP2 (Rn1)>| + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 55] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + | | | | | + | | | | <Repeat | + | | | | Step 1 with| + | | | | 2% incorrect| + | | | |OFPT_PACKET_INs>| + | | | | | + | | | | <Record Rx| + | | | | frames at| + | | | | TP2 (Rn2)>| + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + OFPT_PACKET_IN(Sa+1..Sn,Da+1..Dn): OFPT_PACKET_IN with + wrong version number + Rn1: Total number of frames received at Test Port 2 + with 1% incorrect frames + Rn2: Total number of frames received at Test Port 2 + with 2% incorrect frames + + Discussion: + + The traffic rate sent towards the OpenFlow switch from Test Port 1 + should be 1% higher than the Path Programming Rate. Rn1 will + provide the Path Provisioning Rate of the controller when 1% of + incorrect frames are received, and Rn2 will provide the Path + Provisioning Rate of the controller when 2% of incorrect frames + are received. + + The procedure defined above provides test steps to determine the + effects of handling error packets on the Path Programming Rate. + The same procedure can be adapted to determine the effects on + other performance tests listed in this benchmarking test. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 56] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.6.2. Handling Denial-of-Service Attacks + +Procedure: + +Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Device OpenFlow SDN +Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application + | | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | | + | |---------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)| | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | | + |--------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1..Sn,| | + | | | D1..Dn)| | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |TCP SYN attack | | + | | |from a switch | | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(D1..Dn) | | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | | | FLOW_MOD(S1..Sn) | | + | | | OFP headers | | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | |Traffic (S1..Sn, | | | + | | D1..Dn) | | | + | |<----------------| | | + | | | | | + | | | |<Wait for the| + | | | |expiry of the| + | | | | Trial| + | | | | Duration>| + | | | | | + | | | | <Record Rx| + | | | | frames at| + | | | | TP2 (Rn1)>| + | | | | | + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 57] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + + Discussion: + + A TCP SYN attack should be launched from one of the + emulated/simulated OpenFlow switches. Rn1 provides the Path + Programming Rate of the controller upon handling a denial-of- + service attack. + + The procedure defined above provides test steps to determine the + effects of handling denial of service on the Path Programming + Rate. The same procedure can be adapted to determine the effects + on other performance tests listed in this benchmarking test. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 58] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.7. Reliability + +A.7.1. Controller Failover Time + +Procedure: + +Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Device OpenFlow SDN +Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application + | | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1) | | | + | |-------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1) | | + | | |---------------------->| | + | | | | | + |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1) | | | + |--------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1,D1) | | + | | |---------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(D1) | | + | | |<----------------------| | + | | |FLOW_MOD(S1) | | + | | |<----------------------| | + | | | | | + | |Traffic (S1,D1)| | | + | |<--------------| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S2,D1) | | + | | |---------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(S2) | | + | | |<----------------------| | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN | | + | | | (Sn-1,D1) | | + | | |---------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(Sn,D1) | | + | | |---------------------->| | + | | | . | | + | | | . |<Bring down | + | | | . | the active | + | | | | controller> | + | | | FLOW_MOD(Sn-1) | | + | | | X<-----------------| | + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 59] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(Sn) | | + | | |<----------------------| | + | | | | | + | |Traffic (Sn,D1)| | | + | |<--------------| | | + | | | | | + | | | |<Stop the | + | | | |test after | + | | | |recv. traffic| + | | | |upon | + | | | |failure> | + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + + Discussion: + + The time difference between the last valid frame received before + the traffic loss and the first frame received after the traffic + loss will provide the Controller Failover Time. + + If there is no frame loss during the Controller Failover Time, the + Controller Failover Time can be deemed negligible. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 60] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +A.7.2. Network Re-provisioning Time + +Procedure: + +Test Traffic Test Traffic Network Devices OpenFlow SDN +Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application + | | | | | + | |G-ARP (D1) | | | + | |--------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1) | | + | | |--------------------->| | + | |G-ARP (S1) | | | + |----------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1) | | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + |Traffic (S1,D1,Seq. no (1..n))| | | + |----------------------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(S1,D1) | | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | Traffic (D1,S1,| | | + | | Seq. no (1..n))| | | + | |--------------->| | | + | | | | | + | | |OFPT_PACKET_IN(D1,S1) | | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(D1) | | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(S1) | | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | | Traffic (S1,D1,| | | + | | Seq. no(1))| | | + | |<---------------| | | + | | | | | + | | Traffic (S1,D1,| | | + | | Seq. no(2))| | | + | |<---------------| | | + | | | | | + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 61] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + | | | | | + | Traffic (D1,S1,Seq. no(1))| | | + |<-----------------------------| | | + | | | | | + | Traffic (D1,S1,Seq. no(2))| | | + |<-----------------------------| | | + | | | | | + | Traffic (D1,S1,Seq. no(x))| | | + |<-----------------------------| | | + | | | | | + | | Traffic (S1,D1,| | | + | | Seq. no(x))| | | + | |<---------------| | | + | | | | | + | | | | | + | | | | <Bring down | + | | | | the switch in| + | | | | the active| + | | | | traffic path>| + | | | | | + | | |PORT_STATUS(Sa) | | + | | |--------------------->| | + | | | | | + | | Traffic (S1,D1,| | | + | | Seq. no(n - 1))| | | + | | X<------------| | | + | | | | | + |Traffic (D1,S1,Seq. no(n - 1))| | | + | X<------------------------| | | + | | | | | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(D1) | | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | | |FLOW_MOD(S1) | | + | | |<---------------------| | + | | | | | + | Traffic (D1,S1,Seq. no(n))| | | + |<-----------------------------| | | + | | | | | + | | Traffic (S1,D1,| | | + | | Seq. no(n))| | | + | |<---------------| | | + | | | | | + | | | |<Stop the test| + | | | | after recv. | + | | | | traffic upon| + | | | | failover> | + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 62] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + + Legend: + + G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message + Seq. no: Sequence number + Sa: Neighbor switch of the switch that was brought down + + Discussion: + + The time difference between the last valid frame received before + the traffic loss (packet with sequence number x) and the first + frame received after the traffic loss (packet with sequence + number n) will provide the Network Re-provisioning Time. + + Note that the trial is valid only when the controller provisions + the alternate path upon network failure. + +Acknowledgments + + The authors would like to thank the following individuals for + providing their valuable comments regarding the earlier draft + versions of this document: Al Morton (AT&T), Sandeep Gangadharan + (HP), M. Georgescu (NAIST), Andrew McGregor (Google), Scott Bradner, + Jay Karthik (Cisco), Ramki Krishnan (VMware), Boris Khasanov + (Huawei), and Brian Castelli (Spirent). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 63] + +RFC 8456 SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology October 2018 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan + Veryx Technologies Inc. + 1 International Plaza, Suite 550 + Philadelphia, PA 19113 + United States of America + + Email: bhuvaneswaran.vengainathan@veryxtech.com + + + Anton Basil + Veryx Technologies Inc. + 1 International Plaza, Suite 550 + Philadelphia, PA 19113 + United States of America + + Email: anton.basil@veryxtech.com + + + Mark Tassinari + Hewlett Packard Enterprise + 8000 Foothills Blvd. + Roseville, CA 95747 + United States of America + + Email: mark.tassinari@hpe.com + + + Vishwas Manral + NanoSec Co + 3350 Thomas Rd. + Santa Clara, CA 95054 + United States of America + + Email: vishwas.manral@gmail.com + + + Sarah Banks + VSS Monitoring + 930 De Guigne Drive + Sunnyvale, CA 94085 + United States of America + + Email: sbanks@encrypted.net + + + + + + +Bhuvaneswaran, et al. Informational [Page 64] + |