Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-ebgp
draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-ebgp
Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: January 2006
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Shankar Rao
Qwest Communications
July 2005
Methodology for Benchmarking Accelerated Stress
with Operational EBGP Instabilities
<draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-ebgp-00.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
ABSTRACT
Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
being managed. To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous operational
conditions, which is known as Stress Testing. This document provides
the Methodology for performing Stress Benchmarking of networking
devices when subjected to instability with eBGP-4. Descriptions of
Test Topology, Benchmarks and Reporting Format are provided in
addition to procedures for conducting various test cases. This
methodology is based upon the accelerated stress methodology
guidelines [6] and is to be used with the companion terminology
document [4].
Poretsky and Rao [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 2
2. Existing definitions ....................................... 2
3. Test Setup.................................................. 2
4. Test Cases.................................................. 3
4.1 Failed Primary EBGP Peer................................... 3
4.2 Establish New EBGP Peer.................................... 3
4.3 BGP Route Explosion........................................ 4
4.4 BGP Policy Configuration................................... 4
4.5 Persistent BGP Flapping.................................... 5
4.6 BGP Route Flap Dampening................................... 6
4.7 Nested Convergence Events.................................. 6
5. IANA Considerations..................................... 7
6. Security Considerations..................................... 7
7. References........................................ 7
8. Author's Address............................................ 8
1. Introduction
Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
being managed. To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous operational
conditions, which is known as Stress Testing. This document provides
methodologies based upon the accelerated stress methodology
guidelines [6] and is to be used with the companion terminology
document [4]. This document provides the methodologies for performing
Stress Benchmarking of networking devices when subjected to instability
with eBGP-4. Test cases are provided for such conditions as a failed
EBGP peer, establishing a new EBGP peer, BGP Route Explosion, BGP
Policy Configuration, Persistent BGP Flapping, Route Flapping with BGP
Dampening enabled, Nested Convergence Events, and secure BGP.
Descriptions of Test Topology, Benchmarks and Reporting Format are
provided in addition to the procedures to be used for conducting various
test cases.
2. Existing definitions
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [7].
RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent
of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document.
Terms specific to Accelerated Stress Benchmarking are defined in [4].
3. Test Setup
Test Setup, Test Topologies, Considerations, and Reporting Format
MUST be as described in [6].
Poretsky and Rao [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
4. Test Cases
4.1 Failed Primary EBGP Peer
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when losing an EBGP
Peer from which most FIB routes have been learned.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Remove link to EBGP peer with most FIB routes. This SHOULD
be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity with
a local fiber pull. Loss of the peering session SHOULD
cause the DUT to withdraw 100,000 or greater routes.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
until the DUT converges from the lost EBGP link. Other DUT
operation should be stable without session loss or sustained
packet loss. Recovery time should not be infinite.
4.2 Establish New EBGP Peer
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when establishing a
new EBGP Peer from which routes are learned.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Configure a new EBGP peering session at DUT and peering router.
Physical and Data Link Layer connectivity SHOULD already exist
to perform this step. Establishment of the peering session
MUST result in the DUT learning X routes from the BGP peer and
advertising X routes to the BGP peer.
NOTE 1: Number X of BGP Routes MUST be recorded.
NOTE 2: X routes MUST be installed in the FIB and MUST be
verified installed in the FIB by sending data to each NLRI.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
Poretsky and Rao [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be zero packet loss as the DUT
learns the new routes. Other DUT operation should be stable
without session loss or sustained packet loss.
4.3 BGP Route Explosion
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when there is BGP Route
Explosion experienced in the network.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Advertise X BGP routes to the DUT from a single EBGP
neighbor.
NOTE 1: Number X of BGP Routes MUST be recorded.
NOTE 2: X routes MUST be installed in the FIB and MUST be
verified installed in the FIB by sending data to each NLRI.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including BGP route
advertisement.
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be no additional packet loss from
the advertisement of routes from the BGP neighbor. Other
DUT operation should be stable without session loss.
4.4 BGP Policy Configuration
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when there is continuous
reconfiguration of BGP Policy at the DUT.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
Poretsky and Rao [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Configure BGP Policy on the DUT for each established neighbor.
The BGP Policy SHOULD filter X% of the routes learned from
that neighbor.
NOTE 1: Note that the specific policy configuration
to achieve the filtering may be device specific.
NOTE 2: Number X% of BGP Policies MUST be recorded.
NOTE 3: The policies MUST be applied so that routes in the FIB
are impacted.
7. Every 30 minutes remove the BGP Policy configuration and then
configure it gain so that it is reapplied.
8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including Policy
changes
10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
11. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be no packet loss resulting from
the continuous configuration and removal of BGP Policy for BGP
neighbors. Other DUT operation should be stable without session
loss.
4.5 Persistent BGP Flapping
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
sessions for an infinite period.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session.
This SHOULD be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity
via a local interface shutdown/no shutdown every 180 seconds with
a delay of 10 seconds between the shut and no shut.
The loss of the EBGP peering session MUST cause the DUT to withdraw
100,000 routes that are re-learned when the session
re-establishes. Route Flap Dampening SHOULD NOT be enabled.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including flapping
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Poretsky and Rao [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
Results
It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
from repeated Convergence Events. Other DUT operation should be
stable without session loss. Recovery time should not be infinite.
4.6 BGP Route Flap Dampening
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
sessions for an infinite period and route flap dampening is
enabled.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Configure Route Flap Dampening on the DUT with DEFAULT parameter
values.
3. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
4. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
5. Report benchmarks (for stability)
6. Apply Instability Conditions
7. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session.
This SHOULD be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity
via a local interface shutdown/no shutdown every 180 seconds with
a delay of 10 seconds between the shut and no shut.
The loss of the EBGP peering session MUST cause the DUT to withdraw
100,000 or greater routes that are re-learned when the session
re-establishes.
8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
11. Optional - Change Route Flap Dampening parameter values
12. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be significant packet loss from
repeated Convergence Events and flap dampening. Other DUT
operation should be stable without session loss. Recovery time
should not be infinite.
4.7 Nested Convergence Events [5]
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
sessions causes Nested Convergence Events.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
Poretsky and Rao [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session.
This SHOULD be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity
via a local interface shutdown/no shutdown every 10 seconds with
a delay of 1 second between the shut and no shut.
The loss of the EBGP peering session MUST cause the DUT to withdraw
100,000 or greater routes that are re-learned when the session
re-establishes. Route Flap Dampening SHOULD NOT be enabled.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including flapping
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
from Nested Convergence Events. New Other DUT operation should be
stable without session loss. Recovery time should not be infinite.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
networks.
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[2] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", RFC 2285, June 1998.
[3] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[4] Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Terminology for Accelerated
Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-05,
work in progress, July 2005.
[5] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-05,
work in progress, July 2005.
[6] Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Methodology Guidelines for Accelerated
Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-03,
work in progress, July 2005.
[7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
7.2 Informative References
[RFC3871] RFC 3871 "Operational Security Requirements for Large
Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure.
G. Jones, Ed.. IETF, September 2004.
[NANOG25] "Core Router Evaluation for Higher Availability", Scott
Poretsky, NANOG 25, June 8, 2002, Toronto, CA.
[IEEECQR] "Router Stress Testing to Validate Readiness for Network
Deployment", Scott Poretsky, IEEE CQR 2003.
[CONVMETH] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-05,
work in progress, July 2005.
[NANOG30] Poretsky, S. and Imhoff, B., "BGP Testing: Why be so Negative?",
NANOG 30, Miami, Feb 2004.
8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Shankar Rao
1801 California Street
8th Floor
Qwest Communications
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 9]
