Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Al Morton Sridhar RaoShivank Chaudhary  Minh-Ngoc Tran


4 main topics today: Comments on BMWG Draft, Internship status, UNH Transition, IXIA equipment


Discussion: Contribution on Containerized network benchmarking in BMWG session IETF-115All



Slides: Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructure  Sirdhar will contact.





Comments: ETSI TST009 scenarios were preliminary and not tested.  The draft extends these scenarios with Pod inside VM.

Sridhar Rao Tested many similar scenarios - performance difference among with VM and without VM is negligible. Not really necessary to test.  Minh needs to check this with colleagues  Sridhar will share our teams results - part of Daniele's work.  The reason people run VMs is for security reasons and resource isolation -WHEN Containers did not supply.

Parameters section: Cannot use a CNI independent of the Networking model (SRIOV or user space determines this)

Some Networking models listed are not relevant when performance is the priority. Are these even applicable when performance matters? maybe not.  For example, their networking model includes Kernel space switching will perform poorly. Minh replies that ALL the Models are included.  Need to categorize into good/bad perf.  Minh agrees.

Performance Impacts:  Major example is Number of Cores, which is not included in the Draft.  Please add this.  Minh agrees.

Section 3 clarify the use of Containers and Pods - used interchangeably now. need to clarify

Section 3 Some generalizations about CNI are not correct - Some CNI do not use user namespace

Figure 1 What is Container Engine?  is it Container Run-time. 

4.2 Some duplication on Container Network Plugin? Agree.  Can use different CNI with same network Model - no difference. The SR-IOV networking model would make a big difference with other models, but CNI not so much.  The Vswitch and the Networking model are closely tied together (Models with VPP are not possible with OVS, for example).

Section 4.3 CNI does not create it's own switch functions   Also, which of 5 networking models does Calico fall. Figures in Section 4.3.  Normal Calico does not use eBPF  Calico should fall in section 4.3.1 figure, but needs to be fixed. (remove "VSwitch")  and add Kernel routing tables in the user space vswitch block.

There was a Cillium eBPF scenario that was in the slides - this is not possible with the traffic gen and DPDK.

Intern Update  



has connectivity working - should be finished by tomorrow.

author of eBPF bridge says has same problem. 

Need to use Ansible for automation-this is key.  There were some version issues, need older version? 

Plan is to Finish-up by Friday . We hope it will go well for you!


Need to update with changes in December (12/2 for stable/nile was too early).

UNH transition All

Given that our Pod terminated (time-out) is there any way to recover? Or better to start from scratch?

Can automate the IP addrs assignments for all the traffic links - How?   Can Config.YAML really work?  or is Ansible better?

UNH transition requirementsAllTestbed - IXIA supportSridhar/Al

Tim Gresham asks for resolution on this.

If we can get it, do we want it?  No good without license!  So, is a license still valid or available for update?

THEN - need to ship and install in UNH, get working there - IXIA help  to do this.


Trevor Cooper says connected and powered on, but we still might have a license issue. Need Pierre's help.

this activity seems to have stalled ...

Pod 19 also not accessible - Dan Xu.