draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 1 TCP Throughput Testing Methodology IETF 76 Hiroshima Barry Constantine

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 2 OSI Model: Division of Responsibility IT department responsibility Network Provider’s responsibility Shared responsibility Transport 4 Application Presentation Session Network Datalink Physical HTTP, FTP, , etc. TCP IP Ethernet

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 3 History: Provisioning of Managed Networks  Even though RFC2544 was meant to benchmark network equipment (and used by network equipment manufacturers), network providers have used it to benchmark managed, operational networks in order to provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to their business customers –Ultimately, network providers have come to the realization that a successful RFC2544 test result does not guarantee end-user satisfaction  It is difficult if not impossible, to extrapolate end-user application layer performance from RFC2544 results and the goal of RFC2544 was never intended to do so.

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 4 Automated turn-up test – RFC 2544 Overview  Goal –Run a sequence of tests to verify the general performance of a circuit.  Test method –Packet based end-end or looped-back  Test end-end network: –Throughput rate in frames/sec or % link utilization –Frame loss absolute or % –Delay/Latencyin ms or us –Back-to-Back in frames or time  Test parameters: –Packet size: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518 bytes –Packet rate: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100% of maximum rate –Burst: Time or number of packets Note: RFC 2544 is a single stream test

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 5 The Need for TCP Standard Test Methodology  Network providers (and NEMs) are wrestling with end-end network complexities (queuing, VPNs, active proxy devices, etc.) –they desire to standardize a test methodology to validate end-end TCP performance, as this is the precursor to acceptable end-user application performance  The intent behind this draft TCP throughput work is to define a methodology for testing TCP layer performance (in a business class, managed network), and guidelines for expected TCP throughput results that should be observed in the network under test

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 6 The “Bounds” of this Draft Methodology  TCP draft Testing Methodology is not intended to: –definitively benchmark TCP implementations of one OS to another, although some users may find value in conducting qualitative experiments –provide detailed diagnosis of problems within end-points or the network itself as related to non-optimal TCP performance  TCP draft Testing Methodology is intended to: –provide the logical, next-step testing methodology so that a network provider can test the managed network at Layer 4 (beyond the current Layer 2/3 RFC2544 testing approach) –provide a practical test approach that specifies the more well understood (and end-user configurable) TCP parameters such as Window size, MSS, # connections, and how these affect the outcome of TCP performance over a network –define a TCP layer test condition to validate that the end-end network is tuned as expected (shaping, queuing, etc.) –define the means to test end-end prioritization of services, both stateful TCP and UDP

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 7 Step 1: Baseline TCP Throughput  Before stateful TCP testing can begin, it is important to baseline the round trip delay and bandwidth of the network to be tested. –These measurements provide estimates of the ideal TCP window size, which will be used in subsequent test steps. –These latency and bandwidth tests should be run long enough to characterize the performance of the network over the course of a meaningful time period. –The goal would be to determine a representative minimum, average, and maximum RTD and bandwidth for the network under test.

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 8 Step 2: TCP Throughput versus MSS Size  By varying the MSS size of the TCP connection(s), the ability of the network to sustain expected TCP throughput can be verified. –This is similar to frame and packet size techniques within RFC2544, which aim to determine the ability of the routing/switching devices to handle loads in term of packets/frames per second at various frame and packet sizes.  VPN technologies such as IPSEC, reduce the available MSS size to lower values than the traditional maximum MSS (1460 bytes) –PMTUD is often disabled on end hosts, since it is not always reliable (black hole routers, server routing anomalies, etc.) –Mis-configured, end-user equipment may exceed this MSS, which causes IP fragmentation and can cause mis-diagnosis of performance issues

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 9 Step 3: Verify Shaping, Policing, Queuing  Default router queuing (i.e. FIFO based) is inefficient for business critical applications. –Policing can cause TCP Tail Drop and Global Synchronization; from the user’s perspective, this condition causes significant performance degradation  By automating end-to-end testing with several (4 or more) simultaneous TCP sessions, detect non-optimized shaping / queuing in the network –Detect large discrepancies in throughput results between TCP sessions, which identifies potential network performance optimization with proper shaping and queuing Time Throughput

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 10 Step 4: Test Prioritization with Real TCP Traffic  Application traffic such as Citrix, Peoplesoft, etc. now require real-time performance to meet end-user response time expectations; there is a fine balance between application data traffic prioritization and VoIP, Video, etc. –Emulate bursty TCP traffic sessions (i.e. Citrix, HTTP, SMTP, etc.) with the proper CoS and QoS values at an average throughput rate and with peaks. –Emulate concurrent UDP sessions (i.e. VoIP G.711) with the proper CoS and QoS values TCP Session #1

draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 11 Challenges of TCP Test Methodology  Standardizing a TCP test methodology will be valuable and is of high interest to the network provider (NP) and network equipment manufacturer (NEM)  As opposed to RFC2544 packet based testing, strict “pass / fail” metrics will be much more complicated (if not infeasible) –Is it acceptable to standardize the testing procedure and provide guidelines for metrics (expected ranges)? –Specifying the appropriate data to be charted across the test interval is very useful (throughput, retransmissions, RTD)