1 / 5

Traffic Management Benchmarking Framework IETF 86 Orlando Barry Constantine

Traffic Management Benchmarking Framework IETF 86 Orlando Barry Constantine barry.constantine@jdsu.com Tim Copley timothy.copley@level3.com Ram Krishnan ramk@brocade.com. Traffic Management Benchmarking Overview.

liv
Download Presentation

Traffic Management Benchmarking Framework IETF 86 Orlando Barry Constantine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Traffic Management Benchmarking Framework IETF 86 Orlando Barry Constantine barry.constantine@jdsu.com Tim Copley timothy.copley@level3.com Ram Krishnan ramk@brocade.com

  2. Traffic Management Benchmarking Overview • Could be an extension of RFC 2544 benchmarking into traffic management functionality • Classification / Prioritization • Policing • Buffering • Queuing / Scheduling • Shaping • In addition to packet based testing, would utilize “application test patterns” in order to fully characterize the performance of the device under bursty traffic conditions

  3. Status of Personal Submission • Received extensive comments from three (3) reviewers • Overall comments were very supportive of this work • Summary of comments: • Test the DUT with multiple flows during each of the test types; for example, queue tests need each type of queue exercised in parallel • In addition to observed packet performance (i.e. drops), verify that the DUT counters are accurate • Need to address multiple port test cases • Add TCP layer testing to the Policer benchmarking (in addition to stateless traffic tests) • Remove the misused “QoS” term throughout document

  4. Discussion of Benchmark vs. Functional Test • Al Morton made some comments (as chair) concerning the nature of a functional test versus black-box benchmark • “Inherently, that testing includes the "functional" test that you are seeking now (If I configure 64kbps CBR, does the DUT enforce/achieve that limit)” • Language in the draft will be augmented to align with the BMWG charter • Clearly state that performance metrics will be measured to compare vendor performance

  5. Next Steps for the Traffic Management Draft • We seek the BMWG to formally adopt this personal submission as a chartered draft work • Work intensely on the next revision(s) to incorporate the excellent comments that we received

More Related