On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, 1:40 PM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tom, Kalyani, > > > > If the SR processing of the two SIDs is done by the end host, then I > believe the results for SR are obviously not valid. > Pablo, Why isn't this valid? > > > Also in all the hardware-based routing platforms for which we have done > interop > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-interop-00#section-2, > we have SRv6 running at linecard rate. > > > > Note that I find this performance testing work interesting, and I’m > willing to help you carry them. However, for next releases I would also > consider leveraging projects like linux foundation fdio CSIT > https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/Description, in order to have a more > methodical and accurate results (ILA has higher throughput than native IPv6 > with a lower TPS). > > > To be clear, this is testing a real TCP stack and host terminating encapsulation (not just router performance). For this purpose the tests are methodical and accurate. The big difference in performance have a lot to do how well NICs deal with different encapsulations and EH in case of SR. The most interesting result, I think, is IPIP (and SR/IPIP) with drop in TPS. This indicates that device (in this case ixgbe) isn't getting 5-tuple hash for RSS. It's not parsing over headers to find ports for hash. Interestingly, it was able to parse into L4 when just SR header is present. Capabilities for things like this will vary between NICs. Tom > Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > Pablo. > > ------------------------------ > *De:*Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > *Enviado:*viernes, 16 de marzo de 2018 7:58 p. m. > *Para:*Uma Chunduri > *Cc:* dmm > *Asunto:* Re: [DMM] some test results of different network overlay methods > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Great work, Thank you Kalyani & Tom. > > > > 2 quick questions: > > > > 1. I presume SR inline is just SRH with 2 SIDs as mentioned - didn't > see the topology used. Do intermediate nodes handle these SIDs, with > pointer update in SRH? > > Two hosts connected back to back. SR processing done by end host. > > > 2. Also for Geneve - it's IP4 encap and VNI no TLVs? > > > No TLVs. GUE uses RCO extension. Other than that all the variants > should be out of the box with no options set. Encapsulations are > v4/v4, SRv6 and ILA are all IPv6. > > I'll post the all the configuration scripts to github once I have some > time. > > Tom > > > > -- > > Uma C. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Bogineni, Kalyani > > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:16 AM > > To: dmm <[email protected]> > > Subject: [DMM] some test results of different network overlay methods > > > > > > All: > > > > Here are some raw performance test results based on our understanding of > the different network overlay methods. We welcome discussion and comments.. > > > > Kalyani and Tom > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
