Internet DRAFT - draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra

draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra







Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                            K. Sun
Internet-Draft                                                   H. Yang
Intended status: Informational                                   Y. Park
Expires: January 24, 2020                                         Y. Kim
                                                     Soongsil University
                                                                  W. Lee
                                                                    ETRI
                                                           July 23, 2019


  Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized
                            Infrastructures
                 draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-02

Abstract

   This draft describes benchmarking considerations for the
   containerized infrastructure.  In the containerized infrastructure,
   Virtualized Network Functions(VNFs) are deployed on operating-system-
   level virtualization platform by abstracting the user namespace as
   opposed to virtualization using a hypervisor.  Leveraging this, the
   system configurations and networking scenarios for benchmarking will
   be partially changed by the way in which the resource allocation and
   network technologies specified for containerized VNFs.  In this draft
   we compare the state of the art in a container networking
   architecture with networking on VM-based virtualized systems, and
   provide several test scenarios in the containerized infrastructure.

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 https://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 24, 2020.







Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Comparison with the VM-based Infrastructure . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Container Networking Classification . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Resource Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Benchmarking Scenarios for the Containerized Infrastructure .   9
   5.  Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Acknkowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group(BMWG) has recently
   expanded its benchmarking scope from Physical Network Function(PNF)
   running on dedicated hardware system to Network Function
   Virtualization(NFV) infrastructure and Virtualized Network
   Function(VNF).  [RFC8172] described considerations for configuring
   NFV infrastructure and benchmarking metrics, and [RFC8204] gives
   guidelines for benchmarking virtual switch which connects VNFs in
   Open Platform for NFV(OPNFV).

   Recently NFV infrastructure has evolved to include a lightweight
   virtualized platform called the containerized infrastructure, where
   VNFs share the same host Operating System(OS) and they are logically
   isolated by using a different namespace.  While previous NFV
   infrastructure uses a hypervisor to allocate resources for Virtual
   Machine(VMs) and instantiate VNFs on it, the containerized
   infrastructure virtualizes resources without a hypervisor, therefore



Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   making containers very lightweight and more efficient in
   infrastructure resource utilization compared to the VM-based NFV
   infrastructure.  When we consider benchmarking for VNFs in the
   containerized infrastructure, it may have a different System Under
   Test(SUT) and Device Under Test(DUT) configuration compared with both
   black-box benchmarking and VM-based NFV infrastructure as described
   in [RFC8172].  Accordingly, additional configuration parameters and
   testing strategies may be required.

   In the containerized infrastructure, a VNF network is implemented by
   running both switch and router functions in the host system.  For
   example, the internal communication between VNFs in the same host
   uses the L2 bridge function, while communication with external
   node(s) uses the L3 router function.  For container networking, the
   host system may use a virtual switch(vSwitch), but other options
   exist.  In the [ETSI-TST-009], they describe differences in
   networking structure between the VM-based and the containerized
   infrastructure.  Occasioned by these differences, deployment
   scenarios for testing network performance described in [RFC8204] may
   be partially applied to the containerized infrastructure, but other
   scenarios may be required.

   In this draft, we describe differences and additional considerations
   for benchmarking containerized infrastructure based on [RFC8172] and
   [RFC8204].  In particular, we focus on differences in system
   configuration parameters and networking configurations of the
   containerized infrastructure compared with VM-based NFV
   infrastructure.  Note that, although the detailed configurations of
   both infrastructures differ, the new benchmarks and metrics defined
   in [RFC8172] can be equally applied in containerized infrastructure
   from a generic-NFV point of view, and therefore defining additional
   metrics or methodologies is out of scope.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document is to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].  This
   document uses the terminology described in [RFC8172], [RFC8204],
   [ETSI-TST-009].

3.  Benchmarking Considerations

3.1.  Comparison with the VM-based Infrastructure

   For the benchmarking of the containerized infrastructure, as
   mentioned in [RFC8172], the basic approach is to reuse existing
   benchmarking methods developed within the BMWG.  Various network



Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   function specifications defined in BMWG should still be applied to
   containerized VNF(C-VNF)s for the performance comparison with
   physical network functions and VM-based VNFs.

 +---------------------------------+  +--------------------------------+
 |+--------------+ +--------------+|  |+------------+    +------------+|
 ||   Guest VM   | |   Guest VM   ||  || Container  |    | Container  ||
 ||+------------+| |+------------+||  ||+----------+|    |+----------+||
 |||     APP    || ||     APP    |||  |||   APP    ||    ||   APP    |||
 ||+------------+| |+------------+||  ||+----------+|    |+----------+||
 ||+------------+| |+------------+||  ||+----------+|    |+----------+||
 |||Guest Kernel|| ||Guest Kernel|||  ||| Bin/Libs ||    || Bin/Libs |||
 ||+------------+| |+------------+||  ||+----------+|    |+----------+||
 |+------^-------+ +-------^------+|  |+-----^------+    +------^-----+|
 |+------|-----------------|------+|  |+-----|------------------|-----+|
 ||      |    Hypervisor   |      ||  ||     |+----------------+|     ||
 |+------|-----------------|------+|  ||     ||Container Engine||     ||
 |+------|-----------------|------+|  ||     |+----------------+|     ||
 ||      | Host OS Kernel  |      ||  ||     |  Host OS Kernel  |     ||
 |+------|-----------------|-----+||  |+-----|------------------|-----+|
 |    +--v-----------------v--+    |  |  +---v------------------v---+  |
 +----|    physical network   |----+  +--|    physical network      |--+
      +-----------------------+            +--------------------------+
     (a) VM-Based Infrastructure       (b) Containerized Infrastructure

                Figure 1: Comparison of NFV Infrastructures

   In Figure 1, we describe two different NFV architectures: VM-based
   and Containerized.  A major distinction between the containerized and
   the VM-based infrastructure is that with the former, all VNFs share
   same host resources including but not limited to computing, storage
   and networking resources, as well as the host Operating System(OS),
   kernel and libraries.  The absence of the guest OS and the
   hypervisor, necessitates the following considerations that occur in
   the test environment:

   o When we consider hardware configurations for the containerized
   infrastructure, all components described in [RFC8172] can be part of
   the test setup.  While capabilities of servers and storages should
   meet the minimum requirements for testing, it is possible to deploy a
   test environment with less capabilities than in the VM-based
   infrastructure.

   o About configuration parameters, the containerized infrastructure
   needs specified management system instead of a hypervisor(e.g.  Linux
   Container, Docker Engine).





Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   o In the VM-based infrastructure, each VM manipulates packets in the
   kernel of the guest OS through its own CPU threads, virtualized and
   assigned by the hypervisor.  On the other hand, C-VNFs use the host
   CPU without virtualization.  Different CPU resource assignment
   methods may have different CPU utilization perspectives for the
   performance benchmarking.

   o From a Memory Management Unit(MMU) point of view, there are
   differences in how the paging process is conducted between two
   environments.  The main difference lies in the isolated nature of the
   OS for VM-based VNFs.  In the containerized infrastructure, memory
   paging which processes conversion between physical address and
   virtual address is affected by the host resource directly.  Thus,
   memory usage of each C-VNFs is more dependent on the host resource
   capabilities than in VM-based VNFs.

3.2.  Container Networking Classification

   Container networking services are provided as network plugins.
   Basically, using them, network services are deployed by using
   isolation environment from container runtime through the host
   namespace, creating virtual interface, allocating interface and IP
   address to C-VNF.  Since the containerized infrastructure has
   different network architecture depending on its using plugins, it is
   necessary to specify the plugin used in the infrastructure.  There
   are two proposed models for configuring network interfaces for
   containers as below;

   o CNM(Container Networking Model) proposed by Docker, using
   libnetwork which provides an interface between the Docker daemon and
   network drivers.

   o CNI(Container Network Interface) proposed by CoreOS, describing
   network configuration files in JSON format and plugins are
   instantiated as new namespaces.  Kubernetes uses CNI for providing
   network service.

   Regardless of both CNM and CNI, container network model can be
   classified into kernel space network model and user space network
   model according to the location of network service creation.  In case
   of kernel-based network model, network interfaces are created in
   kernel space so that data packets should be processed in network
   stack of host kernel before transferring packets to the C-VNF running
   in user space.  On the other hand, using user-based network model,
   data packets from physical network port are bypassed kernel
   processing and delivered directly to user space.  Specific
   technologies for each network model and example of network
   architecture are written as follows:



Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   o Kernel space network model: Docker Network[Docker-network], Flannel
   Network[Flannel], Calico[Calico], OVS(OpenvSwitch)[OVS], OVN(Open
   Virtual Network)[OVN], eBPF[eBPF]

    +------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | User Space                                                       |
    |   +-----------+                                  +-----------+   |
    |   | Container |                                  | Container |   |
    |   | +-------+ |                                  | +-------+ |   |
    |   +-|  eth  |-+                                  +-|  eth  |-+   |
    |     +--^----+                                      +----^--+     |
    |        |  +------------------------------------------+  |        |
    |        |  |   vSwitch                                |  |        |
    |        |  | +--------------------------------------+ |  |        |
    |        |  | |             +--v---v---v--+          | |  |        |
    |        |  | |bridge       |   tag[n]    |          | |  |        |
    |        |  | |             +--^-------^--+          | |  |        |
    |        |  | +--^-------------|-------|-----------^-+ |  |        |
    |        |  |    |         +---+       +---+       |   |  |        |
    |        |  |    | +------ v-----+ +-------v----+  |   |  |        |
    |        |  |    | |tunnel bridge| | flat bridge | |   |  |        |
    |        |  |    | +------^------+ +-------^-----+ |   |  |        |
    |        |  +--- |--------|----------------|-------|---+  |        |
    ---------|------ |--------|----------------|-------|------|---------
    |   +----|-------|--------|----------------|-------|------|----+   |
    |   | +--v-------v--+     |                |    +--v------v--+ |   |
    |   | |    veth     |     |                |    |    veth    | |   |
    |   | +---^---------+     |                |    +---^--------+ |   |
    |   | Kernel Datapath     |                |                   |   |
    |   +---------------------|----------------|-------------------+   |
    |                         |                |                       |
    | Kernel Space         +--v----------------v--+                    |
    +----------------------|          NIC         |--------------------+
                           +----------------------+


             Figure 2: Examples of Kernel Space Network Model

   o User space network model / Device pass-through model: SR-
   IOV[SR-IOV]











Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


    +------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | User Space                                                       |
    |    +-----------------+                    +-----------------+    |
    |    |    Container    |                    |    Container    |    |
    |    | +-------------+ |                    | +-------------+ |    |
    |    +-|  vf driver  |-+                    +-|  vf driver  |-+    |
    |      +-----^-------+                        +------^------+      |
    |            |                                       |             |
    -------------|---------------------------------------|--------------
    |            +---------+                   +---------+             |
    |               +------|-------------------|------+                |
    |               | +----v-----+       +-----v----+ |                |
    |               | | virtual  |       | virtual  | |                |
    |               | | function |       | function | |                |
    | Kernel Space  | +----^-----+  NIC  +-----^----+ |                |
    +---------------|      |                   |      |----------------+
                    | +----v-------------------v----+ |
                    | |      Classify and Queue     | |
                    | +-----------------------------+ |
                    +---------------------------------+

   Figure 3: Examples of User Space Network Model - Device Pass-through

   o User space network model / vSwitch model: ovs-dpdk[ovs-dpdk],
   vpp[vpp], netmap[netmap]


























Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


    +------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | User Space                                                       |
    |    +-----------------+                    +-----------------+    |
    |    |    Container    |                    |    Container    |    |
    |    | +-------------+ |                    | +-------------+ |    |
    |    +-| virtio-user |-+                    +-| virtio-user |-+    |
    |      +-----^-------+                        +-------^-----+      |
    |            |                                        |            |
    |            +---------+                    +---------+            |
    |    +-----------------|--------------------|-----------------+    |
    |    |  vSwitch        |                    |                 |    |
    |    |         +-------v-----+        +-----v-------+         |    |
    |    |         | virtio-user |        | virtio-user |         |    |
    |    |         +-------^-----+        +-----^-------+         |    |
    |    |    +------------|--------------------|-------------+   |    |
    |    |    |         +--v--------------------v---+         |   |    |
    |    |    |bridge   |           tag[n]          |         |   |    |
    |    |    |         +------------^--------------+         |   |    |
    |    |    +----------------------|------------------------+   |    |
    |    |                   +-------v--------+                   |    |
    |    |                   |  dpdk0 bridge  |                   |    |
    |    |                   +-------^--------+                   |    |
    |    +---------------------------|----------------------------+    |
    |                        +-------v--------+                        |
    |                        |    DPDK PMD    |                        |
    |                        +-------^--------+                        |
    ---------------------------------|----------------------------------
    | Kernel Space             +-----v------+                          |
    +--------------------------|     NIC    |--------------------------+
                               +------------+

   Figure 4: Examples of User Space Network Model - vSwitch Model using
                                   DPDK

3.3.  Resource Considerations

   In the containerized infrastructure, resource utilization and
   isolation may have different characteristics compared with the VM-
   based infrastructure.  Some details are listed as follows:

   o Hugepage: When using Cent OS or RedHat OS in the VM-based
   infrastructure, Hugepage should be set to at least 1G byte.  In the
   containerized infrastructure, container is isolated in the
   application level so that administrators can set Hugepage more
   granular level(e.g 2M, 4M, ...).  In addition, since the increase of
   the Hugepage can affect the Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) miss,
   the value of the Hugepage should be taken into account in the
   performance measurement.  Moreover, benchmarking results may vary



Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   according to Hugepage set value of kernel space model and user space
   model in the containerized infrastructure so that Hugepage values
   should be considered when we configure test environment.

   o NUMA: NUMA technology can be used both in the VM-based and
   containerized infrastructure.  However, the containerized
   infrastructure provides more variable options than the VM-based
   infrastructure such as kernel memory, user memory, and CPU setting.
   Instantiation of C-VNFs is somewhat non-deterministic and apparently
   NUMA-Node agnostic, which is one way of saying that performance will
   likely vary whenever this instantiation is performed.  So, when we
   use NUMA in the containerized infrastructure, repeated instantiation
   and testing to quantify the performance variation is required.

   o RX/TX Multiple-Queue: RX/TX Multiple-Queue technology[Multique],
   which enables packet sending/receiving processing to scale with
   number of available vcpus of guest VM, may be used to enhance network
   performance in the VM-based infrastructure.  However, RX/TX Multiple-
   Queue technology is not supported in the containerized infrastructure
   yet.

4.  Benchmarking Scenarios for the Containerized Infrastructure

   Figure 5 shows briefly differences of network architectures based on
   deployment models.  Basically, on bare metal, C-VNFs can be deployed
   as a cluster called POD by Kubernetes, otherwise each C-VNF can be
   deployed separately using Docker.  In former case, there is only one
   external network interface even a POD contains more than one C-VNF.
   An additional deployment model considers a scenario in which C-VNFs
   or PODs are running on VM.  In our draft, we define new
   terminologies; BMP which is Pod on bare metal and VMP which is Pod on
   VM.



















Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                          Baremetal Node                             |
 |                                                                     |
 | +--------------+ +--------------+ +-------------- + +-------------+ |
 | |              | |     POD      | |      VM       | |     VM      | |
 | |              | |+------------+| |+-------------+| |  +-------+  | |
 | |   C-VNF(A)   | || C-VNFs(B)  || ||  C-VNFs(C)  || |  |PODs(D)|  | |
 | |              | |+------------+| |+-----^-------+| |  +---^---+  | |
 | |              | |              | |      |        | |      |      | |
 | |   +------+   | |   +------+   | |   +--v---+    | |  +---v--+   | |
 | +---| veth |---+ +---| veth |---+ +---|virtio|----+ +--|virtio|---+ |
 |     +--^---+         +---^--+         +--^---+         +---^--+     |
 |        |                 |               |                 |        |
 |        |                 |            +--v---+         +---v--+     |
 | +------|-----------------|------------|vhost |---------|vhost |---+ |
 | |      |                 |            +--^---+         +---^--+   | |
 | |      |                 |               |                 |      | |
 | |   +--v---+         +---v--+         +--v---+         +---v--+   | |
 | | +-| veth |---------| veth |---------| Tap  |---------| Tap  |-+ | |
 | | | +--^---+         +---^--+         +--^---+         +---^--+ | | |
 | | |    |                 |    vSwitch    |                 |    | | |
 | | | +--|-----------------|---------------|-----------------|--+ | | |
 | | +-|  |                 |    Bridge     |                 |  |-+ | |
 | |   +--|-----------------|---------------|-----------------|--+   | |
 | |      |   +---------+   |            +--|-----------------|---+  | |
 | |      |   |Container|   |            |  |    Hypervisor   |   |  | |
 | |      |   | Engine  |   |            |  |                 |   |  | |
 | |      |   +---------+   |            +--|-----------------|---+  | |
 | |      |                 |  Host Kernel  |                 |      | |
 | +------|-----------------|---------------|-----------------|------+ |
 |     +--v-----------------v---------------v-----------------v--+     |
 +-----|                      physical network                   |-----+
       +---------------------------------------------------------+

     Figure 5: Examples of Networking Architecture based on Deployment
    Models - (A)C-VNF on Baremetal (B)Pod on Baremetal(BMP) (C)C-VNF on
                           VM (D)Pod on VM(VMP)

   In [ETSI-TST-009], they described data plane test scenarios in a
   single host.  In that document, there are two scenarios for
   containerized infrastructure; Container2Container which is internal
   communication between two containers in the same Pod, and Pod2Pod
   model which is communication between two containers running in
   different Pods.  According to our new terminologies, we can call
   Pod2Pod model as BMP2BMP scenario.  When we consider container
   running on VM as an additional deployment option, there can be more
   single host test scenarios as follows;




Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   o BMP2VMP scenario

 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | HOST                              +-----------------------------+   |
 |                                   |VM +-------------------+     |   |
 |                                   |   |       C-VNF       |     |   |
 |  +--------------------+           |   | +--------------+  |     |   |
 |  |      C-VNF         |           |   | | Logical Port |  |     |   |
 |  | +--------------+   |           |   +-+--^-------^---+--+     |   |
 |  | | Logical Port |   |           |   +----|-------|---+        |   |
 |  +-+--^-------^---+---+           |   |  Logical Port  |        |   |
 |       |       |                   +---+----^-------^---+--------+   |
 |       |       |                            |       |                |
 |  +----v-------|----------------------------|-------v-------------+  |
 |  |            l----------------------------l                     |  |
 |  |                    Data Plane Networking                      |  |
 |  |                    (Kernel or User space)                     |  |
 |  +----^--------------------------------------------^-------------+  |
 |       |                                            |                |
 |  +----v------+                                +----v------+         |
 |  |  Phy Port |                                |  Phy Port |         |
 |  +-----------+                                +-----------+
 +-------^--------------------------------------------^----------------+
         |                                            |
 +-------v--------------------------------------------v----------------+
 |                                                                     |
 |                           Traffic Generator                         |
 |                                                                     |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

               Figure 6: Single Host Test Scenario - BMP2VMP

   o VMP2VMP scenario


















Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |  HOST                                                               |
 |  +-----------------------------+   +-----------------------------+  |
 |  |VM +-------------------+     |   |VM +-------------------+     |  |
 |  |   |       C-VNF       |     |   |   |       C-VNF       |     |  |
 |  |   | +--------------+  |     |   |   | +--------------+  |     |  |
 |  |   | | Logical Port |  |     |   |   | | Logical Port |  |     |  |
 |  |   +-+--^-------^---+--+     |   |   +-+--^-------^---+--+     |  |
 |  |   +----|-------|---+        |   |   +----|-------|---+        |  |
 |  |   |  Logical Port  |        |   |   |  Logical Port  |        |  |
 |  +---+----^-------^---+--------+   +---+----^-------^---+--------+  |
 |           |       |                        |       |                |
 |  +--------v-------v------------------------|-------v-------------+  |
 |  |                l------------------------l                     |  |
 |  |                    Data Plane Networking                      |  |
 |  |                    (Kernel or User space)                     |  |
 |  +----^--------------------------------------------^-------------+  |
 |       |                                            |                |
 |  +----v------+                                +----v------+         |
 |  |  Phy Port |                                |  Phy Port |         |
 |  +-----------+                                +-----------+         |
 +-------^--------------------------------------------^----------------+
         |                                            |
 +-------v--------------------------------------------v----------------+
 |                                                                     |
 |                           Traffic Generator                         |
 |                                                                     |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

               Figure 7: Single Host Test Scenario - VMP2VMP

5.  Additional Considerations

   When we consider benchmarking for not only containerized but also VM-
   based infrastructure and network functions, benchmarking scenarios
   may contain various operational use cases.  Traditional black-box
   benchmarking is focused to measure in-out performance of packet from
   physical network ports, since hardware is tightly coupled with its
   function and only single function is running on its dedicated
   hardware.  However, in the NFV environment, the physical network port
   commonly will be connected to multiple VNFs(i.e.  Multiple PVP test
   setup architecture was described in [ETSI-TST-009]) rather than
   dedicated to a single VNF.  Therefore, benchmarking scenarios should
   reflect operational considerations such as number of VNFs or network
   services defined by a set of VNFs in a single host.
   [service-density], which proposed a way for measuring performance of
   multiple NFV service instances at a varied service density on a




Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   single host, is one example of these operational benchmarking
   aspects.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  Acknkowledgement

   We would like to thank Al, Maciek and Luis who reviewed and gave
   comments of previous draft.

8.  Informative References

   [Calico]   "Project Calico", July 2019,
              <https://docs.projectcalico.org/>.

   [Docker-network]
              "Docker, Libnetwork design", July 2019,
              <https://github.com/docker/libnetwork/>.

   [eBPF]     "eBPF, extended Berkeley Packet Filter", July 2019,
              <https://www.iovisor.org/technology/ebpf>.

   [ETSI-TST-009]
              "Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3;
              Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and
              Measurement Methods for NFVI", October 2018.

   [Flannel]  "flannel 0.10.0 Documentation", July 2019,
              <https://coreos.com/flannel/>.

   [Multique]
              "Multiqueue virtio-net", July 2019,
              <https://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Multiqueue>.

   [netmap]   "Netmap: a framework for fast packet I/O", July 2019,
              <https://github.com/luigirizzo/netmap>.

   [OVN]      "How to use Open Virtual Networking with Kubernetes", July
              2019, <https://github.com/ovn-org/ovn-kubernetes>.

   [OVS]      "Open Virtual Switch", July 2019,
              <https://www.openvswitch.org/>.







Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   [ovs-dpdk]
              "Open vSwitch with DPDK", July 2019,
              <http://docs.openvswitch.org/en/latest/intro/install/
              dpdk/>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC8172]  Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
              Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", RFC 8172,
              July 2017.

   [RFC8204]  Tahhan, M., O'Mahony, B., and A. Morton, "Benchmarking
              Virtual Switches in the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)",
              RFC 8204, September 2017.

   [service-density]
              Konstantynowicz, M. and P. Mikus, "NFV Service Density
              Benchmarking", March 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
              draft-mkonstan-nf-service-density-00>.

   [SR-IOV]   "SRIOV for Container-networking", July 2019,
              <https://github.com/intel/sriov-cni>.

   [vpp]      "VPP with Containers", July 2019, <https://fdio-
              vpp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usecases/containers.html>.

Authors' Addresses

   Kyoungjae Sun
   School of Electronic Engineering
   Soongsil University
   369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
   Seoul, Seoul  06978
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 10 3643 5627
   EMail: gomjae@dcn.ssu.ac.kr













Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking Containerized Infra           July 2019


   Hyunsik Yang
   School of Electronic Engineering
   Soongsil University
   369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
   Seoul, Seoul  06978
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 10 9005 7439
   EMail: yangun@dcn.ssu.ac.kr


   Youngki Park
   School of Electronic Engineering
   Soongsil University
   369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
   Seoul, Seoul  06978
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 10 4281 0720
   EMail: ykpark@dcn.ssu.ac.kr


   Younghan Kim
   School of Electronic Engineering
   Soongsil University
   369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu
   Seoul, Seoul  06978
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 10 2691 0904
   EMail: younghak@ssu.ac.kr


   Wangbong Lee
   ETRI
   ETRI
   161, Gajeong-ro, Yoosung-gu
   Dajeon, Dajeon  34129
   Republic of Korea

   Phone: +82 10 5336 2323
   EMail: leewb@etri.re.kr









Sun, et al.             Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 15]