Skip to content
Permalink
master
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
Independent Hakan Alpan
Internet-Draft Bradley Newton
Intended status: Informational Miles President
Expires: October 29, 2020 Radon Rosborough
Harvey Mudd College
May 2020
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Routing Extension Headers
draft-clinic-ipv6-ext-hdr-bench-method-00
Abstract
This document specifies a test procedure that should be used to
evaluate the performance characteristics of a network interconnection
device that processes IPv6 routing extension headers. The results of
the test procedure can be used to compare the performance of the
Compressed Routing Header (CRH) with the performance of other routing
extension headers and with the performance of packets that do not
include routing extension headers. The routing extension headers
that may be compared with the CRH using the test procedure are the
Segment Routing Header (SRH) and Routing Header Type 0 (RH0).
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), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Language ...........................................2
3. Test Procedure ..................................................3
3.1. DUT Setup ..................................................3
3.2. Independent Variables ......................................3
3.3. Header Contents ............................................4
3.4. Frame Sizes ................................................4
4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
5. Security Considerations .........................................4
6. References ......................................................4
6.1. Normative References .......................................4
6.2. Informative References .....................................5
1. Introduction
IPv6 [RFC8200] source nodes use routing extension headers to specify
the path that packets follow to reach their destination. The first
routing extension header to be defined was Routing Header Type 0
(RH0) [RFC2460]. This header was deprecated [RFC5095] and removed
from current IPv6 implementations because it introduced security
vulnerabilities.
Two replacements to RH0 have been proposed, the Segment Routing
Header (SRH) [RFC8754] and the Compressed Routing Header (CRH)
[I-D.draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr]. Both of these routing
extension headers provide a superset of the functionality that was
previously provided by RH0, and both address the security
vulnerabilities of RH0.
Both RH0 and the SRH specify intermediate nodes in the routing
extension header as a list of 128-bit IPv6 addresses. The
disadvantage of this is that routing headers may become very large,
which may impose data transmission overhead and degrade router
performance (see section 1 of [I-D.draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr]).
For this reason, in the CRH, intermediate nodes are specified using
16-bit or 32-bit short identifiers which are mapped to IPv6 addresses
by intermediate routers.
For a given router, it is possible that either the SRH or the CRH
would result in better performance. Processing a packet that uses
the SRH requires the router to copy a larger header; however,
processing a packet that uses the CRH requires the router to perform
a lookup to translate the short identifier into an IPv6 address.
This document defines a procedure that can be used to compare the
performance of the CRH against other routing extension headers,
namely: the SRH, RH0, and packets without routing extension headers.
2. 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 [RFC2119].
3. Test Procedure
The performance characteristics of routing extension headers on a
given device under test (DUT) SHOULD be measured following the
guidelines in [RFC2544], except as specified in the following
sections. The set of tests that is run SHOULD include a throughput
test, and MAY also include other tests that are specified in
[RFC2544].
3.1. DUT Setup
The DUT to be tested MUST be able to process each of the routing
extension headers whose performance will be compared. To get the
most useful results, both the CRH and the SRH SHOULD be included. If
possible, both 16-bit and 32-bit versions of the CRH SHOULD be
included. RH0 and packets without a routing extension header MAY be
included as well for comparison.
The CRH has limited support in current IPv6 implementations, so the
requirement to support the CRH is likely to be the most difficult to
fulfill. Juniper Networks has produced implementations of the CRH in
the Linux kernel and in the MX-series router (see section 11 of
[I-D.draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr]). However, these
implementations currently support only the 16-bit version of the CRH.
If the CRH is included in tests, then the router MUST have at least
one SID configured to map to the tester's IP address. This SID MUST
be used in the CRH to cause the router to forward the packet back to
the tester (or receiver, if separate transmitting and receiving
devices are used).
As per [RFC2544], configuration changes MUST NOT be made to the
router between different tests.
3.2. Independent Variables
The performance characteristics of routing extension header
processing may be affected by several factors, which SHOULD be used
as independent variables in the test procedure:
o The type of routing extension header in use (the CRH, the SRH,
RH0, or none).
o For the CRH, whether 16-bit or 32-bit short identifiers are used.
o For the CRH, the SRH, and RH0, the number of addresses (or, for
the CRH, short identifiers) specified in the header. This
variable SHOULD range at least from 1 to 15, but MAY include
higher values if desired.
o The number of data bytes included in the packets that are sent.
This variable SHOULD take on the same set of values for each
permutation of the other independent variables. See the
discussion of frame sizes below.
Each test SHOULD be run for every possible combination of the
independent variables.
3.3. Header Contents
No extension headers should be used except for the routing extension
headers being tested. Only one extension header at a time should be
used.
The next segment in the SRH and RH0 MUST be the IP address of the
tester (or, when using separate transmitting and receiving devices,
the receiver). The next segment in the CRH MUST be an SID that the
DUT has been configured to map to the IP address of the tester (or
receiver). This configuration MUST be done before starting any
tests.
Apart from the next segment for the SRH and RH0, the IP addresses
used in the CRH, the SRH, and RH0 should be selected randomly as
outlined in appendix C of [RFC2544] from the ranges reserved for this
purpose by IANA.
3.4. Frame Sizes
The performance characteristics of routing extension headers may vary
depending on frame size. Section 9 of [RFC2544] provides guidelines
for selecting frame sizes. However, different routing extension
headers use different amounts of space to encode the same
information. In particular, the CRH uses less space to encode
information about intermediate nodes than the SRH and RH0. For this
reason, a fair comparison between two routing extension headers uses
the same payload size for each rather than the same frame size for
each.
The set of payload sizes for the tests SHOULD be chosen so that the
resulting set of frame sizes for each routing extension header and
each number of addresses follows the guidelines set out in [RFC2544]
as closely as possible.
4. IANA Considerations
No IANA actions required.
5. Security Considerations
No security considerations.
6. References
6.1. 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>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment
Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754,
March 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr]
Bonica, R., Kamite, Y., Niwa, T., Alston, A., and
L. Jalil, "The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH)",
draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr-14 (work in progress),
April 2020.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ron Bonica and Geoff Kuenning for
their comments and suggestions that improved this document.
Authors' Addresses
Hakan Alpan
Harvey Mudd College
EMail: halpan@hmc.edu
Bradley Newton
Harvey Mudd College
EMail: bnewton@hmc.edu
Miles President
Harvey Mudd College
EMail: mpresident@hmc.edu
Radon Rosborough
Harvey Mudd College
EMail: rrosborough@hmc.edu