Browse Source

Cleanup appendix

master
Nico Schottelius 3 years ago
parent
commit
27d4d449aa
  1. 3
      doc/Conclusion.tex
  2. 267
      doc/Results.tex
  3. BIN
      doc/Thesis.pdf
  4. 1933
      doc/appendix.tex

3
doc/Conclusion.tex

@ -66,3 +66,6 @@ Long term supporting python3 would be helpful. P4OS.
- react on FIN/RST (?) -- could be an addition
P4os - reusable code
Future work: session handling

267
doc/Results.tex

@ -14,12 +14,26 @@ P4 software implementation.
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{results:p4}P4 based implementations}
We successfully implemented P4 code to realise
NAT64~\cite{schottelius:thesisrepo}. It contains parsers
for all related protocols (ipv6, ipv4, udp, tcp, icmp, icmp6, ndp,
arp), supports EAMT as defined by RFC7757 ~\cite{rfc7757} and is
feature equivalent to the two compared software solutions
tayga~\cite{lutchansky:_tayga_simpl_nat64_linux} and
jool~\cite{mexico:_jool_open_sourc_siit_nat64_linux}.
Due to limitations in the P4 environment of the
NetFPGA~\cite{conclusion:netfpga} environment, the BMV2 implementation
is more feature rich. Table \ref{tab:benchmark} summarises the
achieved bandwidths of the NAT64 solutions.
BEFORE OR AFTER MARKER - FIXME
All planned features could be realised with P4 and a controller.
For this thesis the parsing capabilities of P4 were adequate.
However P4, at the time of writing, cannot parse ICMP6 options in
general, as the upper level protocol does not specify the number
of options that follow and parsing of an undefined number
of 64 bit blocks is required.
of 64 bit blocks is required, which P4 does not support.
The language has some limitations on where the placement of
conditional statements (\texttt{if/switch}).\footnote{In general,
@ -61,34 +75,15 @@ The supporting scripts in the P4 toolchain are usually written in
python2. However python2 ``is
legacy''~\cite{various:_shoul_i_python_python}. During development
errors with unicode string handling in python2 caused
changes to IPv6 addresses.~\ref{appendix:p4:python2unicode}
P4os - reusable code
% idomatic problem: Security issue: not checking checksums before
****** TODO IPv6 udp -> IPv4
- Got 4-5 tuple ([proto], src ip, src port, dst ip, dst port)
- Does not / never signal end
- Needs timeout for cleaning up
P4/BMV2 thus
allows us to closest resemble any other translation implementation.
Only supporting /96, not other embeddings as described in
section \ref{background:transition:prefixnat}.
changes to IPv6 addresses.\footnote{Compare section ~\ref{appendix:p4:python2unicode}.}
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{\label{Results:BMV2}BMV2}
\section{\label{results:bmv2}P4/BMV2}
The software implementation of P4 has most features, which is
mostly due to the capability of checksumming the payload: Acting
as a ``proper'' participant in NDP, requires the host to calculate
checksums over the payload.
List of features BMV2 ~\cite{tab:p4bmv2features}
mostly due to the capability of creating checksums over the payload.
It enables the switch to act as a ``proper'' participant in NDP, as
this requires the host to calculate checksums over the payload.
Table~\ref{tab:p4bmv2features} references all implemented features.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
@ -140,42 +135,38 @@ fully implemented\footnote{Source code: \texttt{checksum\_bmv2.p4}}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{P4 / BMV2 feature list}
\caption{P4/BMV2 feature list}
\label{tab:p4bmv2features}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Responds to icmp, icmp6
ndp ~\cite{rfc4861}
arp
very easy to use
Fully functional host
Can compute checksums on its own.
focus on typical use cases of icmp, icmp6, the software implementation
supports translating echo request and echo reply messages, but does
not support all ICMP/ICMP6 translations that are defined in
The switch responds to ICMP echo requests, ICMP6 echo requests,
answers NDP and ARP requests. Overall P4/BMV is very easy to use
even without a controller a fully functional network host can be
implemented.
This P4/BMV implementation supports translating ICMP/ICMP6
echo request and echo reply messages, but does not support
all ICMP/ICMP6 translations that are defined in
RFC6145~\cite{rfc6145}.
Stateful : no automatic removal
Session management not benchmarked, as it is only a matter of creating
table entries.
Jool and tayga are supported by
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{\label{results:netpfga}NetFPGA - FIXME: writing}
The reduced feature set of the NetPFGA implementation is due to two
factors: compile time. Between 2 to 6 hours per compile run. No
payload checksum
overview - general translation - not advanced features
\section{\label{results:netpfga}P4/NetFPGA}
In the following section we describe the achieved feature set of
P4/NetFPGA in detail and analyse differences to the BMV2 based
implementation.
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsubsection{\label{results:netpfga:features}Features}
\subsection{\label{results:netpfga:features}Features}
While the NetFPGA target supports P4, compared to P4/BMV2
we only implemented a reduced features set on P4/NetPFGA. The first
reason for this is missing
support of the NetFPGA P4 compiler to inspect payload and to compute
checksums over payload. While this can (partially) be compensated
using delta checksums, the compile time of 2 to 6 hours contributed to
a significant slower development cycle compared to BMV2.
Lastly, the focus of this thesis was to implement high speed NAT64 on
P4, which only requires a subset of the features that we realised on
BMV2. Table \ref{tab:p4netpfgafeatures} summarises the implemented
features and reasons about their implementation status.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
@ -239,12 +230,13 @@ unsupported\footnote{To support creating payload checksums, either an
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{P4 / NetFPGA feature list}
\caption{P4/NetFPGA feature list}
\label{tab:p4netpfgafeatures}
\end{center}
\end{table}
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsubsection{\label{results:netpfga:stability}Stability}
\subsection{\label{results:netpfga:stability}Stability}
Two different NetPFGA cards were used during the development of the
thesis. The first card had consistent ioctl errors (compare section
\ref{netpfgaioctlerror}) when writing table entries. The available
@ -266,25 +258,33 @@ on the first NetFPGA card.
\label{fig:hwtesthendrik}
\end{figure}
During the development and benchmarking, the second NetFPGA card stopped to
function properly multiple times. In both cases the card would not
forward packets anymore. Multiple reboots (3 were usually enough)
function properly multiple times. In theses cases the card would not
forward packets anymore. Multiple reboots (up to 3)
and multiple times reflashing the bitstream to the NetFPGA usually
restored the intended behaviour. However due to this ``crashes'', it
was impossible to complete a full benchmark run that would last for
more than one hour.
Sometimes it was also required to reboot the host containing the
NetFPGA card 3 times to enable successful flashing.\footnote{Typical
output of the flashing process would be: ``fpga configuration failed. DONE PIN is not HIGH''}
was impossible for us run a benchmark for more than one hour.
Similariy, sometimes flashing the bitstream to the NetFPGA would fail.
It was required to reboot the host containing the
NetFPGA card up to 3 times to enable successful flashing.\footnote{Typical
output of the flashing process would be: ``fpga configuration
failed. DONE PIN is not HIGH''}
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsubsection{\label{results:netpfga:performance}Performance}
As expected, the NetFGPA card performed at near line speed and offers
NAT64 translations at 9.28 Gbit/s. Single and multiple streams
The NetFGPA card performed at near line speed and offers
NAT64 translations at 9.28 Gbit/s (see section \ref{results:benchmark}
for details).
Single and multiple streams
performed almost exactly identical and have been consistent through
multiple iterations of the benchmarks.
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsubsection{\label{results:netpfga:usability}Usability}
To use the NetFGPA, Vivado and SDNET provided by Xilinx need to be
\subsection{\label{results:netpfga:usability}Usability}
The handling and usability of the NetFPGA card is rather difficult. In
this section we describe our findings and experiences with the card
and its toolchain.
To use the NetFGPA, the tools Vivado and SDNET provided by Xilinx need to be
installed. However a bug in the installer triggers an infinite loop,
if a certain shared library\footnote{The required shared library
is libncurses5.} is missing on the target operating system. The
@ -388,36 +388,68 @@ techniques are missing or not supported.
Renaming variables in the declaration of the parser or deparser lead
to compilation errors. Function syntax is not supported. For this
reason our implementation uses \texttt{\#define} statements instead of functions.
%ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{results:softwarenat64}Software based NAT64}
Both solutions Tayga and Jool worked flawlessly. However as expected,
both solutions have a bottleneck that is CPU bound. Under high load
scenarios both solutions utilise one core fully. Neither Tayga as a
user space program nor Jool as a kernel module implement multi
threading.
%ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{results:benchmark}NAT64 Benchmarks}
In this section we summarise the benchmarking results, in the
sub sections we discuss the benchmark design and the individual results.
FIXME:
FIXME: summary here
General result: limited NAT64 is working, however
No Payload ; checksumming - requires controller
Hash funktion in Arbeit ; No NDP, no ARP - focused on key factors of NAT64 translation,
other features can be supported by controller
Needed to debug internal parsing errors
debugging generated tcl code to debug impl1 error
MTU setting to 1500, as netpfga doesn't support jumbo frames
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{results:softwarenat64}Software based NAT64}
with Tayga and
Jool
Both cpu bound.
During the benchmark cpu bound, single thread
tayga: Single threaded
easy to use
iperf3, iperf 3.0.11
Jool kernel module
100\% cpu usage on 1 core for udp
0\% visible cpu usage for tcp, might be tcp offloading
Integration with iptables
Requires routing
50 parallel = 2x 100% cpu usage
40 parallel = 100%, 70% cpu usage
30 parallel = 70%-100, 70% cpu usage
Turning back on checksum offloading (see below)
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{results:benchmark}NAT64 Benchmarks - FIXME: explain
numbers}
30 parallel = 70%, 30% cpu usage
\subsection{\label{benchmark:tayga:tcp}Tayga/TCP}
Tayga running at 100% cpu load,
v4->v6 tcp
delivering
3.36 gbit/s at P1
3.30 Gbit/s at P20
3.11 gbit/s at P50
v6->v4 tcp
P1: 3.02 Gbit/s
P20: 3.28 gbit/s
P50: 2.85 gbit/s
Commands:
UDP load generator hitting 100\% cpu at P20.
TCP confirmed.
Over bandwidth results
Feature comparison
speed - sessions - eamt
can act as host
lpm tables
ping
ping6 support
ndp
controller support
netpfga consistent
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{\label{results:benchmark:design}Benchmark Design}
\begin{figure}[h]
@ -449,20 +481,10 @@ warm up phase.\footnote{iperf -O 10 parameter, see section \ref{design:tests}.}
\end{figure}
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
We successfully implemented P4 code to realise
NAT64~\cite{schottelius:thesisrepo}. It contains parsers
for all related protocols (ipv6, ipv4, udp, tcp, icmp, icmp6, ndp,
arp), supports EAMT as defined by RFC7757 ~\cite{rfc7757} and is
feature equivalent to the two compared software solutions
tayga~\cite{lutchansky:_tayga_simpl_nat64_linux} and
jool~\cite{mexico:_jool_open_sourc_siit_nat64_linux}.
Due to limitations in the P4 environment of the
NetFPGA~\cite{conclusion:netfpga} environment, the BMV2 implementation
is more feature rich. Table \ref{tab:benchmark} summarises the
achieved bandwidths of the NAT64 solutions.
\newpage
\subsection{\label{results:benchmark:v6v4tcp}IPv6 to IPv4 TCP
Benchmark Results}
some text
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
@ -487,8 +509,8 @@ Parallel connections & 1 & 10 & 20 & 50 \\
\label{tab:benchmarkv6}
\end{center}
\end{table}
% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{\label{results:benchmark:v4v6tcp}IPv4 to IPv6 TCP Benchmark Results}
During the benchmarks the client -- CPU usage
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
@ -514,7 +536,11 @@ Parallel connections & 1 & 10 & 20 & 50 \\
\end{center}
\end{table}
% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
\newpage
\subsection{\label{results:benchmark:v6v4udp}IPv6 to IPv4 UDP
Benchmark Results}
other text
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
@ -540,7 +566,9 @@ Parallel connections & 1 & 10 & 20 & 50 \\
\end{center}
\end{table}
% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
\subsection{\label{results:benchmark:v4v6udp}IPv4 to IPv6 UDP Benchmark Results}
last text
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
@ -565,18 +593,3 @@ Parallel connections & 1 & 10 & 20 & 50 \\
\label{tab:benchmarkv4}
\end{center}
\end{table}
UDP load generator hitting 100\% cpu at P20.
TCP confirmed.
Over bandwidth results
Feature comparison
speed - sessions - eamt
can act as host
lpm tables
ping
ping6 support
ndp
controller support
netpfga consistent

BIN
doc/Thesis.pdf

Binary file not shown.

1933
doc/appendix.tex

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
Loading…
Cancel
Save