Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV
draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00

Abstract

This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature. The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco" infrastructure.

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 January 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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.

1. Introduction
2. Scope
3. Benchmarking Considerations

3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions
3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks
3.3. New Configuration Parameters
3.4. Flow classification
3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation

4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary
5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage

5.1. Speed of Activation
5.2. Reliability of Activation
5.3. Scale of Activation
5.4. Speed of Operation
5.5. Accuracy of Operation
5.6. Reliability of Operation
5.7. Summary

6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. Acknowledgements
9. References

9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and therefore has garnered much attention.

This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization, "VSWITCHPERF". This project intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature. For example, currently the most referenced RFC is [RFC2544] (which depends on [RFC1242]) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong.

See https://wiki.opnfv.org/characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information: https://www.opnfv.org/

The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud-computing. There are many ways in which telco requirements have different emphasis on performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example.

Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many new benchmarking initiatives across the industry, and the authors are currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other projects, and this Internet Draft is evidence of the efforts.

2. Scope

The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform BMWG of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive literature and experience. Additionally, once the initial information conveyed here is received, this memo may be expanded to include more detail and commentary from both BMWG and OPNFV communities, under BMWG's chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch is an important aspect of that infrastructure).

3. Benchmarking Considerations

This section highlights some specific considerations (from [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net])related to Benchmarks for virtual switches. The OPNFV project is sharing its present view on these areas, as they develop their specifications in the Level Test Design (LTD) document.

3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions

To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed. BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them during development of new methods. A key configuration aspect is the number of parallel cores required to achieve comparable performance with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale was reached before the cores could achieve the comparable level.

It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of internetworking functions.

3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks

External observations remain essential as the basis for Benchmarks. Internal observations with fixed specification and interpretation will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations procedures when the technology is deployed.

3.3. New Configuration Parameters

A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch there are many factors that can affect the consistency of results, one key factor is matching the various hardware and software details of the SUT. This section lists some of the many new parameters which this project believes are critical to report in order to achieve repeatability.

Hardware details including:

Platform details
Processor details
Memory information (type and size)
Number of enabled cores
Number of cores used for the test
Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into)
NIC interrupt configuration
BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were modified
CPU microcode level
Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations
PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack option...)
Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor package, OS...)

Software details including:

OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the console on one system)
OS version (for host and VNF)
Kernel version (for host and VNF)
GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)
Hypervisor details (Type and version)
Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used
vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised
Memory allocation to the vSwitch
which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels
DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used
Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere
VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non-persistent
Number of VMs
Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver
Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host
Number vNIC interrupt configuration
Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch itself) on the host
Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.

Test Traffic Information:

Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other
Packet Sizes
Deployment Scenario

3.4. Flow classification

Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and matching particular packet or frame header information, or by matching packets based on the input ports. Thus a flow can be thought of a sequence of packets that have the same set of header field values or have arrived on the same port. Performance results can vary based on the parameters the vSwitch uses to match for a flow. The recommended flow classification parameters for any vSwitch performance tests are: the input port, the source IP address, the destination IP address and the ethernet protocol type field. It is essential to increase the flow timeout time on a vSwitch before conducting any performance tests that do not measure the flow setup time. Normally the first packet of a particular stream will install the flow in the virtual switch which adds an additional latency, subsequent packets of the same flow are not subject to this latency if the flow is already installed on the vSwitch.

3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation

This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this time.

Benchmark platform forwarding capability

                                                      __
 +--------------------------------------------------+   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   |          Simple Forwarding App           |   |  Host
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 NIC                      |   |   |
 +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Benchmark VNF forwarding capability

                                                      __
 +--------------------------------------------------+   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   |                 VNF                      |   |   |
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |          Passthrough/SR-IOV              |   |  Host
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 NIC                      |   |   |
 +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Baselines:
- Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a vswitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and latency).
- Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct connectivity (vSwitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of VNF validation and a means to obtain the base performance for the VNF in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and latency). The metrics gathered from this test will serve as a key comparison point for vSwitch bypass technologies performance and vSwitch performance.
- Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are SUT
- Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some resources unused
- Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources occupied
Next Steps
- Limited sharing
- Production scenarios
- Stressful scenarios

4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary

The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the pre-existing specifications developed by BMWG to test the performance of physical switches. These specifications include:

[RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
[RFC2889] Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
[RFC6201] Device Reset Characterization
[RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement

In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by:

[RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices
[RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement

Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include:

[RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
[RFC4737] Packet Reordering Metrics

As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the specification.

When considering characteristics important to "telco" network functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the [RFC2544] test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a metric derived from IPPM's [RFC2679], where a set of statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as defined by [RFC5481] , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at Throughput level, where some low-level of background loss may be present and characterized.

Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below:

Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load (as defined by RFC1242) without traffic loss.
Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.
Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover outliers.
Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding logic’s configuration… it has to deal with increases.
Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through the switch.
Control Path and Datapath Coupling Tests, to understand how closely coupled the datapath and the control path are as well as the effect of this coupling on the performance of the DUT (example: delay of the initial packet of a flow).
CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual switch’s footprint on the system, usually conducted as auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.

Future/planned test specs include:

Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the transaction rate through the switch.
Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.

The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network means that the BMWG IETF existing literature needs to be used to characterize the performance of a switch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios under consideration include:

Physical port to virtual switch to physical port

                                                      __
 +--------------------------------------------------+   |
 |              +--------------------+              |   |
 |              |                    |              |   |
 |              |                    v              |   |  Host
 |   +--------------+            +--------------+   |   |
 |   |   phy port   |  vSwitch   |   phy port   |   |   |
 +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port

                                                      __
 +---------------------------------------------------+   |
 |                                                   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 Application               |   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |       ^                                  :        |   |
 |       |                                  |        |   |  Guest
 |       :                                  v        |   |
 |   +---------------+           +---------------+   |   |
 |   | logical port 0|           | logical port 1|   |   |
 +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
         ^                                  :
         |                                  |
         :                                  v         __
 +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+   |
 |   | logical port 0|          | logical port 1|   |   |
 |   +---------------+          +---------------+   |   |
 |       ^                                  :       |   |
 |       |                                  |       |   |  Host
 |       :                                  v       |   |
 |   +--------------+            +--------------+   |   |
 |   |   phy port   |  vSwitch   |   phy port   |   |   |
 +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port

                                                   __
 +----------------------+  +----------------------+  |
 |   Guest 1            |  |   Guest 2            |  |
 |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
 |   |  Application  |  |  |   |  Application  |  |  |
 |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
 |       ^       |      |  |       ^       |      |  |
 |       |       v      |  |       |       v      |  |  Guests
 |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
 |   | logical ports |  |  |   | logical ports |  |  |
 |   |   0       1   |  |  |   |   0       1   |  |  |
 +---+---------------+--+  +---+---------------+--+__|
         ^       :                 ^       :
         |       |                 |       |
         :       v                 :       v       _
 +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
 |   |   0       1   |         |   3       4   |  | |
 |   | logical ports |         | logical ports |  | |
 |   +---------------+         +---------------+  | |
 |       ^       |                 ^       |      | |  Host
 |       |       |-----------------|       v      | |
 |   +--------------+          +--------------+   | |
 |   |   phy ports  | vSwitch  |   phy ports  |   | |
 +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
         ^                                 :
         |                                 |
         :                                 v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Physical port to virtual switch to VNF

                                                       __
 +---------------------------------------------------+   |
 |                                                   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 Application               |   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |       ^                                           |   |
 |       |                                           |   |  Guest
 |       :                                           |   |
 |   +---------------+                               |   |
 |   | logical port 0|                               |   |
 +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
         ^
         |
         :                                            __
 +---+---------------+------------------------------+   |
 |   | logical port 0|                              |   |
 |   +---------------+                              |   |
 |       ^                                          |   |
 |       |                                          |   |  Host
 |       :                                          |   |
 |   +--------------+                               |   |
 |   |   phy port   |  vSwitch                      |   |
 +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
            ^
            |
            :
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

VNF to virtual switch to physical port

                                                       __
 +---------------------------------------------------+   |
 |                                                   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 Application               |   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |                                          :        |   |
 |                                          |        |   |  Guest
 |                                          v        |   |
 |                               +---------------+   |   |
 |                               | logical port  |   |   |
 +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
                                            :
                                            |
                                            v         __
 +------------------------------+---------------+---+   |
 |                              | logical port  |   |   |
 |                              +---------------+   |   |
 |                                          :       |   |
 |                                          |       |   |  Host
 |                                          v       |   |
 |                               +--------------+   |   |
 |                     vSwitch   |   phy port   |   |   |
 +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
                                        :
                                        |
                                        v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

VNF to virtual switch to VNF

                                                   __
 +----------------------+  +----------------------+  |
 |   Guest 1            |  |   Guest 2            |  |
 |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
 |   |  Application  |  |  |   |  Application  |  |  |
 |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
 |              |       |  |       ^              |  |
 |              v       |  |       |              |  |  Guests
 |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
 |   | logical ports |  |  |   | logical ports |  |  |
 |   |           0   |  |  |   |   0           |  |  |
 +---+---------------+--+  +---+---------------+--+__|
                 :                 ^
                 |                 |
                 v                 :               _
 +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
 |   |           1   |         |   1           |  | |
 |   | logical ports |         | logical ports |  | |
 |   +---------------+         +---------------+  | |
 |               |                 ^              | |  Host
 |               L-----------------+              | |
 |                                                | |
 |                    vSwitch                     | |
 +------------------------------------------------+_|

5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage

This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the "3x3" matrix (introduced in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]). Because the LTD specification ID names are quite long, this section is organized into lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all are occupied, also the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale metrics).

The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data plane, rather than the control plane.

(Editor's Note: a complete list of tests is available here: https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review )

5.1. Speed of Activation

Throughput.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
Throughput.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency

5.2. Reliability of Activation

Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime

5.3. Scale of Activation

Throughput.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity

5.4. Speed of Operation

Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate
Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification
Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardingRate
Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
RFC2889 Broadcast Frame Latency test

5.5. Accuracy of Operation

Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering

5.6. Reliability of Operation

Throughput.RFC2544.Soak
Throughput.RFC2544.SoakFrameModification

5.7. Summary

|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |             |            |               |             |
|               |   SPEED     |  ACCURACY  |  RELIABILITY  |    SCALE    |
|               |             |            |               |             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |             |            |               |             |
|  Activation   |      X      |            |       X       |      X      |
|               |             |            |               |             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |             |            |               |             |
|  Operation    |      X      |      X     |       X       |             |
|               |             |            |               |             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |             |            |               |             |
| De-activation |             |            |               |             |
|               |             |            |               |             |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

6. 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.

7. IANA Considerations

No IANA Action is requested at this time.

8. Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge

9. References

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, March 1997.
[RFC2285]	Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
[RFC2330]	Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J. and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May 1998.
[RFC2544]	Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC2679]	Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680]	Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC2681]	Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[RFC2889]	Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, August 2000.
[RFC3393]	Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002.
[RFC3432]	Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G. and A. Morton, "Network performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, November 2002.
[RFC3918]	Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", RFC 3918, October 2004.
[RFC4689]	Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S. and S. Khurana, "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006.
[RFC4737]	Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S. and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, November 2006.
[RFC5357]	Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K. and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5905]	Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J. and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
[RFC6201]	Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera, "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201, March 2011.

9.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]	Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-00, June 2015.
[RFC1242]	Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC5481]	Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
[RFC6049]	Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
[RFC6248]	Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, April 2011.
[RFC6390]	Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, October 2011.

Authors' Addresses

Maryam Tahhan Intel EMail: maryam.tahhan@intel.com

Billy O'Mahony Intel EMail: billy.o.mahony@intel.com

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/