1 / 12

Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked Factors in Network Device Benchmarking

Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked Factors in Network Device Benchmarking. David Newman Timmons C. Player. Agenda. What it is What it isn’t Addresses and hashing Bit- and byte-stuffing Tentative workplan. What it is. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-00.txt

terri
Download Presentation

Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked Factors in Network Device Benchmarking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hash and Stuffing:Overlooked Factorsin Network Device Benchmarking • David Newman • Timmons C. Player

  2. Agenda • What it is • What it isn’t • Addresses and hashing • Bit- and byte-stuffing • Tentative workplan

  3. What it is • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-00.txt • An attempt to deal with the contents of test traffic • A long application note • Covers use of BMWG methodologies(especially results reporting)

  4. What it isn’t • Attempt to define every possible factor affecting test results • Not terminology • Not methodology

  5. Addresses and hashing • BMWG methodologies do not require declaration of addresses used in test traffic • Because of hashing algorithms, addresses can have a huge impact on test results • Leads to non-repeatability • We need to characterize the effects of addresses and compensate for these effects

  6. Simple example • Many test instruments generate source MAC addresses ending in “:01” • Many switches hash on low-order 3 bits • Uh-oh...

  7. Simple example ingress || \/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ | || | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||NP0| |NP1| |NP2| |NP3| |NP4| |NP5| |NP6| |NP7| | ||___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ || \/ egress

  8. Proposed solution • 001^001 = 000 and congestion • RRR^RRR = RRR and no congestion, where R = pseudorandom value • We propose 00:PP:PP:RR:RR:RR, wherePP:PP = port number (00:01-FF:FF)RR:RR:RR = pseudorandom value • We also discuss hashing issues at L3 and L4

  9. Stuff bits and bytes • On bit-synchronous links (DS-1, DS-3, etc.), PPP adds an escape bit prior to any sequence of five “1” bits in a frame • On byte-synchronous links (POS), PPP adds escape bytes for up to 34 different control characters

  10. So what? • Stuffing adds significant and variable overhead • An intended load of 90 percent could be an offered load of 110 percent…oops • We should never congest the DUT/SUT for latency or throughput measurements • We need to characterize and compensate for the effects of stuffing

  11. Proposed solution • For bit stuffing, we offer formulas for determining the probability of stuff bits in infinite and finite strings of bits • For byte stuffing, we offer probabilities for stuffing both with and without ACCM (async-control-character map)

  12. Proposed workplan • August 2004: Initial draft 00 • 31 August 2004: Acceptance (or otherwise) for BMWG review • 15 October 2004: Draft 01 • December 2004: Draft 02 • February 2005: Move for last call

More Related