Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Balamuhunthan Balarajah , Carsten Rossenhoevel | ||
| Last updated | 2018-07-02 (Latest revision 2018-03-23) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance, RFC 9411 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-04
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft C. Rossenhoevel
Intended status: Informational EANTC AG
Expires: January 3, 2019 July 2, 2018
Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-04
Abstract
This document provides benchmarking terminology and methodology for
next-generation network security devices including next-generation
firewalls (NGFW), intrusion detection and prevention solutions (IDS/
IPS) and unified threat management (UTM) implementations. The
document aims to strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility
and transparency of benchmarks and to align the test methodology with
today's increasingly complex layer 7 application use cases. The main
areas covered in this document are test terminology, traffic profiles
and benchmarking methodology for NGFWs to start with.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. DUT/SUT Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Test Equipment Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Client Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Backend Server Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Traffic Flow Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.4. Traffic Load Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Test Bed Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Key Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Throughput Performance With NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix . . . 16
7.1.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 21
7.3. HTTP Transaction per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.3.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.3.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 24
7.4. TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 28
7.5. HTTP Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.5.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 31
7.6. Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . . 32
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.6.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.6.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.6.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.6.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 33
7.7. TCP/HTTPS Connections per second . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.7.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.7.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.7.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.7.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 37
7.8. HTTPS Transaction per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.8.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.8.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.8.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.8.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 40
7.9. HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.9.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.10. HTTPS Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.10.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.10.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.10.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.10.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 44
7.11. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . 45
7.11.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix A. NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
terminology for firewalls initially (RFC 2647, RFC 3511). The
requirements for network security element performance and
effectiveness have increased tremendously since then. Security
function implementations have evolved to more advanced areas and have
diversified into intrusion detection and prevention, threat
management, analysis of encrypted traffic, etc. In an industry of
growing importance, well-defined and reproducible key performance
indicators (KPIs) are increasingly needed: They enable fair and
reasonable comparison of network security functions. All these
reasons have led to the creation of a new next-generation firewall
benchmarking document.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
2. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .
3. Scope
This document provides testing terminology and testing methodology
next-generation firewalls and related security functions. It covers
two main areas: Performance benchmarks and security effectiveness
testing. The document focuses on advanced, realistic, and
reproducible testing methods. Additionally it describes test bed
environments, test tool requirements and test result formats.
4. Test Setup
Test setup defined in this document will be applicable to all of the
benchmarking test scenarios described in Section 7.
4.1. Testbed Configuration
Testbed configuration MUST ensure that any performance implications
that are discovered during the benchmark testing aren't due to the
inherent physical network limitations such as number of physical
links and forwarding performance capabilities (throughput and
latency) of the network devise in the testbed. For this reason, this
document recommends to avoid external devices such as switch and
router in the testbed as possible.
In the typical deployment, the security devices (DUT/SUT) will not
have a large number of entries in MAC or ARP tables, which impact the
actual DUT/SUT performance due to MAC and ARP/ND table lookup
processes. Therefore, depend on number of used IP address in client
and server side, it is recommended to connect Layer 3 device(s)
between test equipment and DUT/SUT as shown in Figure 1.
If the test equipment is capable to emulate layer 3 routing
functionality and there is no need for test equipment ports
aggregation, it is recommended to configure the test setup as shown
in Figure 2.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
+-------------------+ +-----------+ +--------------------+
|Aggregation Switch/| | | | Aggregation Switch/|
| Router +------+ DUT/SUT +------+ Router |
| | | | | |
+----------+--------+ +-----------+ +--------+-----------+
| |
| |
+-----------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------+
| | | |
| +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | Emulated Router(s)| | | | Emulated Router(s)| |
| | (Optional) | | | | (Optional) | |
| +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | Clients | | | | Servers | |
| +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | | |
| Test Equipment | | Test Equipment |
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
Figure 1: Testbed Setup - Option 1
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| +-------------------+ | +-----------+ | +-------------------+ |
| | Emulated Router(s)| | | | | | Emulated Router(s)| |
| | (Optional) | +----- DUT/SUT +-----+ (Optional) | |
| +-------------------+ | | | | +-------------------+ |
| +-------------------+ | +-----------+ | +-------------------+ |
| | Clients | | | | Servers | |
| +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ |
| | | |
| Test Equipment | | Test Equipment |
+-----------------------+ +-----------------------+
Figure 2: Testbed Setup - Option 2
4.2. DUT/SUT Configuration
An unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all of the
benchmarking tests described in Section 7. Since each DUT/SUT will
have their own unique configuration, users SHOULD configure their
device with the same parameters that would be used in the actual
deployment of the device or a typical deployment. Also it is
mandatory to enable security features on the DUT/SUT in order to
achieve maximum security coverage for a specific deployment scenario.
This document attempts to define the recommended security features
which SHOULD be consistently enabled for all of the benchmarking
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
tests described in Section 7. The table below describes the
recommended sets of feature list which SHOULD be configured on the
DUT/SUT. In order to improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT
configuration including description of all enabled DUT/SUT features
MUST be published with the benchmarking results.
+----------------------------------------------------+
| Device |
+---------------------------------+---+---+---+------+
| | | | | | SSL |
| NGFW |NGIPS|ADC|WAF|BPS|Broker|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | |Included |Added to| Future test standards |
|DUT Features |Feature|in initial|future | to be developed |
| | |Scope |Scope | |
+------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+------+
|SSL Inspection| x | | x | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|IDS/IPS | x | x | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Web Filtering | x | | x | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Antivirus | x | x | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Anti Spyware | x | x | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Anti Botnet | x | x | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|DLP | x | | x | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|DDoS | x | | x | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Certificate | x | | x | | | | | |
|Validation | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Logging and | x | x | | | | | | |
|Reporting | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application | x | x | | | | | | |
|Identification| | | | | | | | |
+----------------------+----------+--------+-----+---+---+---+------+
Table 1: DUT/SUT Feature List
In addition, it is also recommended to configure a realistic number
of access policy rules on the DUT/SUT. This document determines the
number of access policy rules for three different class of DUT/SUT.
The classification of the DUT/SUT MAY be based on its maximum
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
supported throughput performance number defined in the vendor data
sheet. This document classifies the DUT/SUT in three different
categories; namely small, medium and maximum.
The recommended throughput values for the following classes are;
Small - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s
Medium - supported throughput greater than 5Gbit/s and less than
10Gbit/s
Large - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s
The access rule defined in the table 2 MUST be configured from top to
bottom in correct order shown in the table. The configured access
policy rule MUST NOT block the test traffic used for the benchmarking
test scenarios.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
+------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| | DUT/SUT |
| | Classification |
| | # Rules |
+-----------+-----------+-----------------+------------+------+-----+
| | Match | | | | | |
| Rules Type| Criteria| Description |Action|Small|Medium|Large|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application|Application|Any application |block | 10 | 20 | 50 |
|layer | |traffic NOT | | | | |
| | |included in the | | | | |
| | |test traffic | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transport |Src IP and |Any src IP use in|block | 50 | 100 | 250 |
|layer |TCP/UDP |the test AND any | | | | |
| |Dst ports |dst ports NOT | | | | |
| | |used in the test | | | | |
| | |traffic | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|IP layer |Src/Dst IP |Any src/dst IP |block | 50 | 100 | 250 |
| | |NOT used in the | | | | |
| | |test | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application|Application|Applications |allow | 10 | 10 | 10 |
|layer | |included in the | | | | |
| | |test traffic | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transport |Src IP and |Half of the src |allow | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|layer |TCP/UDP |IP used in the | | | | |
| |Dst ports |test AND any dst | | | | |
| | |ports used in the| | | | |
| | |test traffic. One| | | | |
| | |rule per subnet | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|IP layer |Src IP |The rest of the |allow | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| | |src IP subnet | | | | |
| | |range used in the| | | | |
| | |test. One rule | | | | |
| | |per subnet | | | | |
+-----------+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+-----+
Table 2: DUT/SUT Access List
4.3. Test Equipment Configuration
In general, test equipment allows configuring parameters in different
protocol level. These parameters thereby influencing the traffic
flows which will be offered and impacting performance measurements.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
This document attempts to explicitly specify which test equipment
parameters SHOULD be configurable, any such parameter(s) MUST be
noted in the test report.
4.3.1. Client Configuration
This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considerable while
configuring emulated clients using test equipment. Also this section
specifies the recommended values for certain parameters.
4.3.1.1. TCP Stack Attributes
The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion
avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on
every TCP connection between client and server endpoints. The
default IPv4 and IPv6 MSS segments size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and
1440 bytes and a TX and RX receive windows of 32768 bytes. Delayed
ACKs are permitted, but it SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec
delay timeout or 3000 in bytes before a forced ACK. Up to 3 retries
SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is declared. All traffic
MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high. The source port range SHOULD be
in the range of 1024 - 65535. Internal timeout SHOULD be dynamically
scalable per RFC 793.
4.3.1.2. Client IP Address Space
The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following
attributes. The traffic blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique,
continuous static address blocks. A default gateway is permitted.
The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'.
The following equation can be used to determine the required total
number of client IP address.
Desired total number of client IP = Target throughput [Mbit/s] /
Throughput per IP address [Mbit/s]
(Idea 1) 6-7 Mbps per IP (e.g 1,400-1,700 IPs per 10Gbit/s
throughput)
(Idea 2) 0.1-0.2 Mbps per IP (e.g 50,000-100,000 IPs per 10Gbit/s
throughput)
Based on deployment and usecase scenario, client IP addresses SHOULD
be distributed between IPv4 and IPv6 type. This document recommends
using the following ratio(s) between IPv4 and IPv6:
(Idea 1) 100 % IPv4, no IPv6
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
(Idea 2) 80 % IPv4, 20 % IPv6
(Idea 3) 50 % IPv4, 50 % IPv6
(Idea 4) 0 % IPv4, 100 % IPv6
4.3.1.3. Emulated Web Browser Attributes
The emulated web browser contains attributes that will materially
affect how traffic is loaded. The objective is to emulate a modern,
typical browser attributes to improve realism of the result set.
For HTTP traffic emulation, the emulated browser must negotiate HTTP
1.1. HTTP persistency MAY be enabled depend on test scenario. The
browser CAN open multiple TCP connections per Server endpoint IP at
any time depending on how many sequential transactions are needed to
be processed. Within the TCP connection multiple transactions can be
processed if the emulated browser has available connections. The
browser MUST advertise a User-Agent header. Headers will be sent
uncompressed. The browser should enforce content length validation.
For encrypted traffic, the following attributes shall define the
negotiated encryption parameters. The tests MUST use TLSv1.2 or
higher with a record size of 16383, commonly used cipher suite and
key strength. Session reuse or ticket resumption may be used for
subsequent connections to the same Server endpoint IP. The client
endpoint must send TLS Extension SNI information when opening up a
security tunnel. Server certificate validation should be disabled.
Server certificate validation should be disabled. Cipher suite and
certificate size should be defined in the parameter session of
benchmarking tests.
4.3.2. Backend Server Configuration
This document attempts to specify which parameters should be
considerable while configuring emulated backend servers using test
equipment.
4.3.2.1. TCP Stack Attributes
The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion
avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on
every TCP connection between client and server endpoints. The
default IPv4 MSS segment size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and a TX and
RX receive windows of at least 32768 bytes. Delayed ACKs are
permitted but SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec delay timeout or
3000 in bytes before a forced ACK. Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed
before a timeout event is declared. All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
flag to high. The source port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 -
65535. Internal timeout should be dynamically scalable per RFC 793.
4.3.2.2. Server Endpoint IP Addressing
The server IP blocks should consist of unique, continuous static
address blocks with one IP per Server FQDN endpoint per test port.
The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'. The source mac address of
the server endpoints shall be the same emulating routed behavior.
Each Server FQDN should have it's own unique IP address. The Server
IP addressing should be fixed to the same number of FQDN entries.
4.3.2.3. HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes
The emulated server pool for HTTP should listen on TCP port 80 and
emulated HTTP version 1.1 with persistence. For HTTPS server, the
pool must have the same basic attributes of an HTTP server pool plus
attributes for SSL/TLS. The server must advertise a server type.
For HTTPS server, TLS 1.2 or higher must be used with a record size
of 16383 bytes and ticket resumption or Session ID reuse enabled.
The server must listen on port TCP 443. The server shall serve a
certificate to the client. It is required that the HTTPS server also
check Host SNI information with the Fully Qualified Domain Name
(FQDN). Client certificate validation should be disabled. Cipher
suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session
of benchmarking tests.
4.3.3. Traffic Flow Definition
The section describes the traffic pattern between the client and
server endpoints. At the beginning of the test, the server endpoint
initializes and will be in a ready to accept connection state
including initialization of the TCP stack as well as bound HTTP and
HTTPS servers. When a client endpoint is needed, it will initialize
and be given attributes such as the MAC and IP address. The behavior
of the client is to sweep though the given server IP space,
sequentially generating a recognizable service by the DUT. Thus, a
balanced, mesh between client endpoints and server endpoints will be
generated in a client port server port combination. Each client
endpoint performs the same actions as other endpoints, with the
difference being the source IP of the client endpoint and the target
server IP pool. The client shall use Fully Qualified Domain Names in
Host Headers and for TLS 1.2 Server Name Indication (SNI).
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
4.3.3.1. Description of Intra-Client Behavior
Client endpoints are independent of other clients that are
concurrently executing. When a client endpoint initiate traffic,
this section will describe how the steps though different services.
Once initialized, the user should randomly hold (perform no
operation) for a few milliseconds to allow for better randomization
of start of client traffic. The client will then either open up a
new TCP connection or connect to a TCP persistence stack still open
to that specific server. At any point that the service profile may
require encryption, a TLS 1.2 encryption tunnel will form presenting
the URL request to the server. The server will then perform an SNI
name check with the proposed FQDN compared to the domain embedded in
the certificate. Only when correct, will the server process the
object. The initial object to the server may not have a fixed size;
its size is based on benchmarking tests described in Section 7.
Multiple additional sub-URLs (Objects on the service page) may be
requested simultaneously. This may or may not be to the same server
IP as the initial URL. Each sub-object will also use a conical FQDN
and URL path, as observed in the traffic mix used.
4.3.4. Traffic Load Profile
The loading of traffic will be described in this section. The
loading of an traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init,
ramp up, sustain, ramp down/close, and collection.
Within the Init phase, test bed devices including the client and
server endpoints should negotiate layer 2-3 connectivity such as MAC
learning and ARP. Only after successful MAC learning or ARP/ND
resolution shall the test iteration move to the next phase. No
measurements are made in this phase. The minimum recommended time
for init phase is 5 seconds. During this phase the emulated clients
SHOULD NOT initiate any sessions with the DUT/SUT, in contrast, the
emulated servers should be ready to accept requests from DUT/SUT or
from emulated clients.
In the ramp up phase, the test equipment should start to generate the
test traffic. It should use a set approximate number of unique
client IP addresses actively to generate traffic. The traffic should
ramp from zero to desired target objective. The target objective
will be defined for each benchmarking test. The duration for the
ramp up phase must be configured long enough, so that the test
equipment do not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported performance metrics
namely; connection setup rate, concurrent connection and application
transaction. The recommended time duration for the ramp up phase is
180- 300 seconds. No measurements are made in this phase.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
In the sustain phase, the test equipment should keep to generate
traffic t constant target value for a constant number of active
client IPs. The recommended time duration for sustain phase is 600
seconds. This is the phase where measurements occur.
In the ramp down/close phase, no new connection is established and no
measurements are made. The recommend duration of this phase is
between 180 to 300 seconds.
The last phase is administrative and will be when the tester merges
and collates the report data.
5. Test Bed Considerations
This section recommends steps to control the test environment and
test equipment, specifically focusing on virtualized environments and
virtualized test equipment.
1. Ensure that any ancillary switching or routing functions between
the system under test and the test equipment do not limit the
performance of the traffic generator. This is specifically
important for virtualized components (vSwitches, vRouters).
2. Verify that the performance of the test equipment matches and
reasonably exceeds the expected maximum performance of the system
under test.
3. Assert that the test bed characteristics are stable during the
whole test session. A number of factors might influence
stability specifically for virtualized test beds, for example
additional work loads in a virtualized system, load balancing and
movement of virtual machines during the test, or simple issues
such as additional heat created by high workloads leading to an
emergency CPU performance reduction.
Test bed reference pre-tests help to ensure that the desired traffic
generator aspects such as maximum throughput and the network
performance metrics such as maximum latency and maximum packet loss
are met.
Once the desired maximum performance goals for the system under test
have been identified, a safety margin of 10% SHOULD be added for
throughput and subtracted for maximum latency and maximum packet
loss.
Test bed preparation may be performed either by configuring the DUT
in the most trivial setup (fast forwarding) or without presence of
DUT.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
6. Reporting
This section describes how the final report should be formatted and
presented. The final test report may have two major sections;
Introduction and result sections. The following attributes should be
present in the introduction section of the test report.
1. The name of the NetSecOPEN traffic mix (see Appendix A) must be
prominent.
2. The time and date of the execution of the test must be prominent.
3. Summary of testbed software and Hardware details
A. DUT Hardware/Virtual Configuration
+ This section should clearly identify the make and model of
the DUT
+ iThe port interfaces, including speed and link information
must be documented.
+ If the DUT is a virtual VNF, interface acceleration such
as DPDK and SR-IOV must be documented as well as cores
used, RAM used, and the pinning / resource sharing
configuration. The Hypervisor and version must be
documented.
+ Any additional hardware relevant to the DUT such as
controllers must be documented
B. DUT Software
+ The operating system name must be documented
+ The version must be documented
+ The specific configuration must be documented
C. DUT Enabled Features
+ Specific features, such as logging, NGFW, DPI must be
documented
+ iAttributes of those featured must be documented
+ Any additional relevant information about features must be
documented
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
D. Test equipment hardware and software
+ Test equipment vendor name
+ Hardware details including model number, interface type
+ Test equipment firmware and test application software
version
4. Results Summary / Executive Summary
1. Results should resemble a pyramid in how it is reported, with
the introduction section documenting the summary of results
in a prominent, easy to read block.
2. In the result section of the test report, the following
attributes should be present for each test scenario.
a. KPIs must be documented separately for each test
scenario. The format of the KPI metrics should be
presented as described in Section 6.1.
b. The next level of detains should be graphs showing each
of these metrics over the duration (sustain phase) of the
test. This allows the user to see the measured
performance stability changes over time.
6.1. Key Performance Indicators
This section lists KPIs for overall benchmarking tests scenarios.
All KPIs MUST be measured in whole period of sustain phase as
described in Section 4.3.4. All KPIs MUST be measured from test
equipment's result output.
o TCP Concurrent Connection
This key performance indicator is measured the average concurrent
open TCP connections in the sustaining period.
o TCP Connection Setup Rate
This key performance indicator will measure the average
established TCP connections per second in the sustaining period.
For Session setup rate benchmarking test scenario, the KPI will
measure average established and terminated TCP connections per
second simultaneously.
o Application Transaction Rate
This key performance indicator will measure the average successful
transactions per seconds in the sustaining period.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
o TLS Handshake Rate
This key performance indicator will measure the average TLS 1.2 or
higher session formation rate within the sustaining period.
o Throughput
This key performance indicator will measure the average Layer 1
throughput within the sustaining period as well as average packets
per seconds within the same period. The value of throughput
should be presented in Gbps rounded to two places of precision
with a more specific kbps in parenthesis. Optionally, goodput may
also be logged as an average goodput rate measured over the same
period. Goodput result shall also be presented in the same format
as throughput.
o URL Response time / Time to Last Byte (TTLB)
This key performance indicator will measure the minimum, average
and maximum per URL response time in the sustaining period. The
latency is measured at Client and in this case would be the time
duration between sending a GET request from Client and the
receival of the response from the server
o Application Transaction Time
This key performance indicator will measure the minimum, average
and maximum the amount of time to receive all objects from the
server.
o Time to First Byte (TTFB)
This key performance indicator will measure minimum, average and
maximum the time to first byte. TTFB is the elapsed time between
sending the SYN packet from the client and receiving the first
byte of application date from the DUT/SUT. TTFB SHOULD be
expressed in millisecond.
o TCP Connect Time
This key performance indicator will measure minimum, average and
maximum TCP connect time. It is elapsed between the time the
client sends a SYN packet and the time it receives the SYN/ACK.
TCP connect time SHOULD be expressed in millisecond.
7. Benchmarking Tests
7.1. Throughput Performance With NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix
7.1.1. Objective
Using NetSecOPEN traffic mix, determine the maximum sustainable
throughput performance supported by the DUT/SUT. (see Appendix A for
details about traffic mix)
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.1.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup MUST be configured as defined in Section 4. Any test
scenario specific test bed configuration changes must be documented.
7.1.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.1.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.1.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
noted for this test scenario:
Client IP address range
Server IP address range
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6
Traffic load objective or specification type (e.g. Throughput,
SimUsers and etc.)
Target throughput: It MAY be defined based on requirements.
Otherwise it represents aggregated line rate of interface(s) used
in the DUT/SUT
Initial throughput: Initial throughput MAY be up to 10% of the
"Target throughput"
7.1.3.3. Traffic Profile
Test scenario MUST be run with a single application traffic mix
profile (see Appendix A for details about traffic mix). The name of
the NetSecOpen traffic mix MUST be documented.
7.1.3.4. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be 0.01%.
b. Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01%
c. Maximum deviation (max. dev) of application transaction time /
TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST be less than X (The value for "X"
will be finalyzed and updated in future draft release)
The following equation MUST be used to calculate the deviation of
application transaction time or TTLB.
max. dev = max((avg_latency - min_latency),(max_latency -
avg_latency)) / (Initial latency)
Where, the initial latency is calculated using the following
equation. For this calculation, the latency values (min', avg'
and max') MUST be measured during test procedure step 1 as
defined in Section 7.1.4.1.
The variable latency represents application transaction time or
TTLB.
Initial latency:= min((avg' latency - min' latency) | (max'
latency - avg' latency))
d. Maximum value of TCP connect time must be less than Xms (The
value for "X" will be finalyzed and updated in future draft
release). The definition for TCP connect time is found in
Section 6.1.
e. Maximum value of Time to First Byte must be less than 2* TCP
connect time.
Test Acceptance criteria for this test scenario MUST be monitored
during the sustain phase of the traffic load profile only.
7.1.3.5. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
Mandatory KPIs: average Throughput, maximum Concurrent TCP
connection, TTLB/application transaction time (minimum, average and
maximum) and average application transaction rate
Optional KPIs: average TCP connection setup rate, average TLS
handshake rate, TCP connect time and TTFB
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.1.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the throughput performance
of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load profile. The
test procedure consists of three major steps.
7.1.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to generate test
traffic at "initial throughput" rate as described in the parameters
section. The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial throughput" during
the sustain phase. Measure all KPI as defined in Section 7.1.3.5.
The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet acceptance
criteria "a" and "b" defined in Section 7.1.3.4.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to step 2.
7.1.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to generate traffic at "Target throughput"
rate defined in the parameter table. The test equipment SHOULD
follow the traffic load profile definition as described in
Section 4.3.4. The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record
all specified KPIs. The frequency of KPI metrics measurement MUST be
less than 5 seconds. Continue the test until all traffic profile
phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target throughput during
the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
acceptance criteria. Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not
meet the acceptance criteria.
7.1.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
acceptance criteria. Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.2. TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.2.1. Objective
Using HTTP traffic, determine the maximum sustainable TCP session
establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
Test iterations MUST use HTTP transaction object sizes of 1KB, 16KB
and 64KB to measure connections per second performance.
7.2.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.2.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.2.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.2.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range defined in 4.3.1.2
- Server IP address range defined in 4.3.2.2
- Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in 4.3.1.2
- Target connections per second: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
- Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
second"
The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connection
immediately after completion of the transaction.
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting 1, 16 and 64 Kbyte objects with
random MIME type. One transaction per TCP connection.
7.2.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
of attempt transaction.
b. Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
sessions
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate
d. During the sustain phase, Average Transaction latency MUST be
constant and not increase more than 10%.
e. Concurrent TCP connection should be constant during steady state.
This confirms that DUT open and close the session almost at the
same rate.
7.2.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
Mandatory KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average
Throughput and Average Time to TCP First Byte.
7.2.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connection per
second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This
test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
IPv6 traffic distribution.
7.2.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial connections per second" as defined in the parameters
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
section. The traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in the
section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial connections per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet the acceptance criteria a, b, c and d defined in section
7.3.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.2.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow
the traffic load profile definition as described in the section
4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
TCP concurrent connections and application transaction MUST NOT reach
to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connection per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all acceptance criteria.
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
7.2.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable connections per second
within the acceptance criteria.
7.3. HTTP Transaction per Second
7.3.1. Objective
Using HTTP1.1 traffic, determine the maximum sustainable HTTP
transactions per second supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
Test iterations MUST use HTTP transaction object sizes of 1KB, 16KB
and 64KB to measure transactions per second performance under a
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
variety of DUT Security inspection load conditions. Each HTTP
connection MUST have 1 HTTP Get session.
7.3.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.3.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.3.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.3.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range defined in 4.3.1.2
- Server IP address range defined in 4.3.2.2
- Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in 4.3.1.2
- Target Transactions per second: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
- Initial Transactions per second: 10% of "Target Transactions per
second"
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
The client MUST negotiate TCPconnection and close the connection
immediately after completion of X (Number of transaction per
connection needs to be defined and it will be updated in the next
rellease)transaction
HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 and 64 Kbyte
objects.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.3.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria. Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase Should not be considered.
a. Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero
b. Number of Terminated HTTP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated HTTP
sessions
c. Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero
d. Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be constant and not increase
more than 10%
e. The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%
7.3.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
average TCP Transactions per second, average Throughput, Average Time
to TCP First Byte and average transaction latency.
7.3.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the HTTP Transactions per
second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This
test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
IPv6 traffic distribution
7.3.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial Transactions per second" as defined in the parameters
section. The traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in the
section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial Transactions per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
meet the acceptance criteria a, b, c and d defined in section
7.3.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.3.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target Transactions per
second" defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD
follow the traffic load profile definition as described in the
section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
TCP concurrent connections and TCP connection rate MUST NOT reach to
the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target transactions per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all acceptance criteria.
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
7.3.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable Transactions per second
within the acceptance criteria. Final test iteration MUST be
performed for the test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.4. TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency
7.4.1. Objective
Using HTTP traffic, determine the average TCP connect time and the
average HTTP transactional latency when DUT is running with
sustainable HTTP session establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT
under different HTTP object size.
Test iterations MUST be performed with different object sizes twice,
one with a single transaction and the other with multiple
transactions within a single TCP session. For consistency both
single and multiple transaction test needs to be configured with
HTTP1.1.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.4.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.4.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.4.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.4.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range defined in 4.3.1.2.
- Server IP address range defined in 4.3.2.2
- Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in 4.3.1.2
- Target connections per second:50% of the value measured in test
scenario 7.2
- Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
second"
- HTTP transaction per connection: one test scenario with single
transaction and another scenario with up to 10 transactions
(recommended value is 10)
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
Two observe transaction latency with single connection single
transaction and single connection multiple transaction the tests
should run twice:
1st test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
connection immediately after completion of the transaction.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
2nd test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTP1.1 and close the
connection after 10 transactions (GET and RESPONSE) within a single
TCP connection.
HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 Kbyte
objects. For each test iteration, client MUST request a single
object size.
7.4.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria. Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase Should not be considered.
Generica criteria:
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be zero.
b. Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be zero.
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate.
d. During the sustain phase, Average connect time and average
transaction time MUST be constant and latency deviation SHOULD
not increase more than 10%.
e. Concurrent TCP connection should be constant during steady state.
This confirms the DUT opens and closes the session at the same
rate. After ramp up the DUT must achieve the target connections
per second objective defined in the parameter section and it
remains in that state for the entire test duration (Steady
Stage).
7.4.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
object sizes separately:
average TCP connections per second, average transaction latency and
average TCP connect time needs to be recorded.
All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
achieves the steady state.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.4.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the latency statistics,
namely average connect time latency and average transaction latencies
when the DUT is operating close to 50% of its maximum achievable
connections per second. , This test procedure CAN be repeated
multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution,
object sizes and single and multiple transactions per connection
scenarios.
7.4.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial connections per second" as defined in the parameters
section. The traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in the
section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial connections per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet the acceptance criteria a, b, c, d and e defined in section
7.4.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.4.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow
the traffic load profile definition as described in the section
4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
TCP concurrent connections and application transaction MUST NOT reach
to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support. The transaction per
HTTP connection may have to be reduced from the value of 10
transactions to lower so that the throughput or transaction max of
DUT/SUT is not reached.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connection per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all acceptance criteria.
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
7.4.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
acceptance criteria and measure the latency values.
7.5. HTTP Throughput
7.5.1. Objective
Determine the throughput for HTTP connections varying the object
size.
7.5.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.5.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.5.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.5.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range Defined in 4.3.1.2
- Server IP address range Defined in 4.3.2.2
- Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)
- Number of object requests per connection: 10
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
- HTTP Response Object Size: 16KB, 64KB, 256KB and mixed objects
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
| | Weight |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 0.2 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 6 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 8 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 9 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 10 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 25 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 26 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 35 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 59 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 347 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
Table 3: Mixed Objects
7.5.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria. Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase Should not be considered.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
of attempt transaction.
b. Traffic should be forwarded constantly.
c. The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%
d. The deviation of average HTTP transaction latency MUST be less
than 10%
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.5.3.4. Measurement
The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
Average Throughput.
7.5.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure HTTP throughput of the DUT/
SUT. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This test
procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
traffic distribution and object sizes.
7.5.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial throughput" as defined in the parameters section.
The traffic load profile should be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4. The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial throughput"
during the sustain phase. Measure all KPI as defined in
Section 7.5.3.4
The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the acceptance
criteria "a" defined in Section 7.5.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.5.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target HTTP connections
at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
acceptance criteria.
Perform the test separately for each object size (16k, 64k, 256k and
mixed object).
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.5.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
acceptance criteria. Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.6. Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity
7.6.1. Objective
Determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connection that DUT/
SUT sustains when using HTTP traffic.
7.6.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.6.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.6.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.6.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
noted for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
4.3.1.2
Target concurrent connection: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
Initial concurrent connection: 10% of "Target concurrent
connection"
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
The client must negotiate HTTP 1.1 with persistence and each client
can open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server endpoint IP.
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting 10 Kbyte objects with random
MIME type.
The test equipment SHOULD perform HTTP transactions within each TCP
connection subsequently. The frequency of transactions MUST be
defined to achieve X% of total throughput that DUT can support. The
suggested value of X is 25. It will be finalyzed and updated in the
next draft version.
During the sustain state of concurrent connection and traffic load ,
a minimal % of TCP connection SHOULD be closed and re-opened.
7.6.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
To be done
7.6.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario;
average Throughput, max. Min. Avg. Concurrent TCP connection, TTLB/
application transaction time (minimum, average and maximum) and
average application transaction rate.
7.6.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the concurrent TCP
connection capacity of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of
traffic load profile. The test procedure consists of three major
steps. This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with
different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution.
7.6.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial concurrent connection" as defined in the parameters section.
The traffic load profile should be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial concurrent connection" during
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet the acceptance criteria "a" and "b" defined in Section 7.6.3.3
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.6.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent connection"
defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow
the traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, the other KPIs such as
throughput, TCP connection rate and application transaction MUST NOT
reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support. Throughput,
TCP connection rate and application transaction should not be reached
more than X% of maximum value that DUT can support. The suggested
value of X is 25. It will be finalyzed and updated in the next draft
version.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target concurrent
connection at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must
meet all acceptance criteria.
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
7.6.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable concurent connection
capacity within the acceptance criteria.
7.7. TCP/HTTPS Connections per second
7.7.1. Objective
Using HTTPS traffic, determine the maximum sustainable SSL/TLS
session establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
MUST include the following ciphers and keys:
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp384
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 3072
For each cipher suite and key strengths, test iterations MUST use a
single HTTP transaction object size of 1KB, 16KB and 64KB to measure
connections per second performance under a variety of DUT Security
inspection load conditions.
7.7.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.7.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.7.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.7.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range defined in 4.3.1.2
- Server IP address range defined in 4.3.2.2
- Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in 4.3.1.2
- Target connections per second: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
- Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
second"
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection
immediately after completion of the transaction.
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting 1, 16 and 64 Kbyte objects with
random MIME type. One Transaction per TCP connection
Each client connection MUST perform a full handshak e with server
certificate (no Certificate on client side) and MUST NOT use session
reuse or resumption
TLS record size MAY be optimized for the object size up to a record
size of 16K
7.7.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
of attempt transaction
b. Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
sessions
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate
d. During the sustain phase, Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be
constant and the deviation of latency MUST NOT increase more than
10%
e. Concurrent TCP connection should be constant during steady state.
This confirms that DUT open and close the session at the same
rate
7.7.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
Mandatory KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average
Throughput and Average Time to TCP First Byte.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.7.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connection per
second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This
test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
IPv6 traffic distribution.
7.7.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial connections per second" as defined in the parameters
section. The traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in the
section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial connections per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet the acceptance criteria a, b, c and d defined in section
7.8.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.7.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow
the traffic load profile definition as described in the section
4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
TCP concurrent connections and application transaction MUST NOT reach
to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connection per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all acceptance criteria.
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.7.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable connections per second
within the acceptance criteria.
7.8. HTTPS Transaction per Second
7.8.1. Objective
Using HTTPS traffic, determine the maximum sustainable Transactions
Per second supported by the DUT/SUT under different throughput load
conditions.
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
MUST include the following ciphers and keys:
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp384
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 3072
7.8.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.8.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.8.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.8.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range defined in 4.3.1.2
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
- Server IP address range defined in 4.3.2.2
- Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in 4.3.1.2
- Target Transactions per second: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
- Initial Transactions per second: 10% of "Target Transactions per
second"
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection
immediately after completion of X (Number of transaction per
connection needs to be defined and it will be updated in the next
rellease)transaction
HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 and 64 Kbyte
objects
Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
certificate and SHOULD NOT use session reuse or resumption
TLS record size MAY be optimized for the object size up to a record
size of 16K
7.8.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria. Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase Should not be considered.
a. Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero
b. Number of Terminated HTTP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated HTTP
sessions
c. Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero
d. Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be constant and not increase
more than 10%
e. The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.8.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
average TCP Transactions per second, average Throughput, Average Time
to TCP First Byte and average transaction latency.
7.8.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the HTTP Transactions per
second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This
test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
IPv6 traffic distribution, object sizes and ciphers and keys.
7.8.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial Transactions per second" as defined in the parameters
section. The traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in the
section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial Transactions per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet the acceptance criteria a, b, c and d defined in section
7.3.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.8.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target Transactions per
second" defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD
follow the traffic load profile definition as described in the
section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
TCP concurrent connections and TCP connection rate MUST NOT reach to
the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target transactions per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all acceptance criteria.
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
7.8.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable Transactions per second
within the acceptance criteria. Final test iteration MUST be
performed for the test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.9. HTTPS Transaction Latency
7.9.1. Objective
Using HTTP traffic, determine the average TCP connect time and the
average HTTP transactional latency when DUT is running with
sustainable HTTP session establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT
under different HTTP object size.
Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
release.
7.10. HTTPS Throughput
7.10.1. Objective
Determine the throughput for HTTPS connections varying the object
size.
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
MUST include the following ciphers and keys:
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp384
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 3072
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
7.10.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.10.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.10.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.10.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section 4.3. Following parameters MUST
be documented for this test scenario:
- Client IP address range Defined in 4.3.1.2
- Server IP address range Defined in 4.3.2.2
- Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)
- Number of object requests per connection: 10
- HTTPS Response Object Size: 16KB, 64KB, 256KB and mixed object
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
| | Weight |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 0.2 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 6 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 8 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 9 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 10 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 25 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 26 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 35 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 59 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 347 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
Table 4: Mixed Objects
Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
certificate (no Certificate on client side) and 50% of connection
SHOULD use session reuse or resumption.
TLS record size MAY be optimized for the object size up to a record
size of 16K.
7.10.3.3. Test Results Acceptance Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
criteria. Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase Should not be considered.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
of attempt transaction.
b. Traffic should be forwarded constantly.
c. The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
d. The deviation of average HTTP transaction latency MUST be less
than 10%
7.10.3.4. Measurement
The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
Average Throughput.
7.10.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure consists of three major steps. This test
procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
traffic distribution and object sizes.
7.10.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial throughput" as defined in the parameters section.
The traffic load profile should be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4. The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial throughput"
during the sustain phase. Measure all KPI as defined in
Section 7.5.3.4
The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the acceptance
criteria "a" defined in Section 7.5.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.10.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target HTTP connections
at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
acceptance criteria.
Perform the test separately for each object size (16k, 64k, 256k and
mixed object).
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
7.10.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
acceptance criteria. Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.11. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity
7.11.1. Objective
Usin encrypted traffic (HTTPS), determine the maximum number of
concurrent TCP connection that DUT/SUT sustains.
Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
release.
8. Formal Syntax
9. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
10. Security Considerations
Security consideration will be added in the future release.
11. Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements will be added in the future release.
12. Contributors
The authors would like to thank the many people that contributed
their time and knowledge to this effort.
Specifically to the co-chairs of the NetSecOPEN Test Methodology
working group and the NetSecOPEN Security Effectiveness working group
- Alex Samonte, Aria Eslambolchizadeh, Carsten Rossenhoevel and David
DeSanto.
Additionally the following people provided input, comments and spent
time reviewiing the myriad of drafts. If we have missed anyone the
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
fault is entirely our own. Thanks to - Amritam Putatunda,
Balamuhunthan Balarajah, Brian Monkman, Chris Chapman, Chris Pearson,
Chuck McAuley, David White, Jurrie Van Den Breekel, Michelle Rhines,
Rob Andrews, Samaresh Nadir, Shay Filosof, and Tim Winters.
13. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Appendix A. NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix
A traffic mix for testing performance of next generation firewalls
MUST scale to stress the DUT based on real-world conditions. In
order to achieve this the following MUST be included:
o Clients connecting to multiple different server FQDNs per
application
o Clients loading apps and pages with connections and objects in
specific orders
o Multiple unique certificates for HTTPS/TLS
o A wide variety of different object sizes
o Different URL paths
o Mix of HTTP and HTTPS
A traffic mix for testing performance of next generation firewalls
MUST also facility application identification using different
detection methods with and without decryption of the traffic. Such
as:
o HTTP HOST based application detection
o HTTPS/TLS Server Name Indication (SNI)
o Certificate Subject Common Name (CN)
The mix MUST be of sufficient complexity and volume to render
differences in individual apps as statistically insignificant. For
example, changes in like to like apps - such as one type of video
service vs. another both consist of larger objects whereas one news
site vs. another both typically have more connections then other apps
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
because of trackers and embedded advertising content. To achieve
sufficient complexity, a mix MUST have:
o Thousands of URLs each client walks thru
o Hundreds of FQDNs each client connects to
o Hundreds of unique certificates for HTTPS/TLS
o Thousands of different object sizes per client in orders matching
applications
The following is a description of what a popular application in an
enterprise traffic mix contains.
Table 5 lists the FQDNs, number of transactions and bytes transferred
as an example client interacts with Office 365 Outlook, Word, Excel,
Powerpoint, Sharepoint and Skype.
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| Office365 FQDN | Bytes | Transaction |
+============================================================+
| r1.res.office365.com | 14,056,960 | 192 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | 6,731,019 | 22 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | 6,269,492 | 42 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| swx.cdn.skype.com | 6,100,027 | 12 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | 6,036,947 | 41 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| spoprod-a.akamaihd.net | 3,904,250 | 25 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-excel-15.cdn.office.net | 2,767,941 | 16 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| outlook.office365.com | 2,047,301 | 86 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| shellprod.msocdn.com | 1,008,370 | 11 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | 932,080 | 25 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| res.delve.office.com | 760,146 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-powerpoint-15.cdn.office.net | 557,604 | 3 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| appsforoffice.microsoft.com | 511,171 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
| powerpoint.officeapps.live.com | 471,625 | 14 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| excel.officeapps.live.com | 342,040 | 14 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-officeapps-15.cdn.office.net | 331,343 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| webdir0a.online.lync.com | 66,930 | 15 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| portal.office.com | 13,956 | 1 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| config.edge.skype.com | 6,911 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| clientlog.portal.office.com | 6,608 | 8 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| webdir.online.lync.com | 4,343 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| graph.microsoft.com | 2,289 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| nam.loki.delve.office.com | 1,812 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| login.microsoftonline.com | 464 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| login.windows.net | 232 | 1 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
Table 5: Office365
Clients MUST connect to multiple server FQDNs in the same order as
real applications. Connections MUST be made when the client is
interacting with the application and NOT first setup up all
connections. Connections SHOULD stay open per client for subsequent
transactions to the same FQDN similar to how a web browser behaves.
Clients MUST use different URL Paths and Object sizes in orders as
they are observed in real Applications. Clients MAY also setup
multiple connections per FQDN to process multiple transactions in a
sequence at the same time. Table 6 has a partial example sequence of
the Office 365 Word application transactions.
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| FQDN | URL Path | Object |
| | | size |
+===================================================================+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /personal... | 23,132 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | /we/WsaUpload.ashx | 2 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/.../blank.js | 454 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/.../ | 23,254 |
| | initstrings.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/.../init.js | 292,740 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /ScriptResource... | 102,774 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /ScriptResource... | 40,329 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /WebResource... | 23,063 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | /we/wordeditorframe. | 60,657 |
| | aspx... | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/_layouts/.../ | 454 |
| | blank.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 19,201 |
| | EditSurface.css | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 221,397 |
| | WordEditor.css | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-officeapps-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 107,571 |
| | Microsoft | |
| | Ajax.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 39,981 |
| | wacbootwe.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-officeapps-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 51,749 |
| | CommonIntl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 6,050 |
| | Compat.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 54,158 |
| | Box4Intl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 24,946 |
| | WoncaIntl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 53,515 |
| | WordEditorIntl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 1,978,712|
| | WordEditorExp.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../jSanity.js | 10,912 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | /we/OneNote.ashx | 145,708 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
Table 6: Office365 Word Transactions
For application identification the HTTPS/TLS traffic MUST include
realistic Certificate Subject Common Name (CN) data as well as Server
Name Indications. For example, a DUT may detect Facebook Chat
traffic by inspecting the certificate and detecting *.facebook.com in
the certificate subject CN and subsequently detect the word chat in
the FQDN 5-edge-chat.facebook.com and identify traffic on the
connection to be Facebook Chat.
Table 7 includes further examples in SNI and CN pairs for several
FQDNs of Office 365.
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|Server Name Indication (SNI) | Certificate Subject |
| | Common Name (CN) |
+=================================================================+
| r1.res.office365.com | *.res.outlook.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| login.windows.net | graph.windows.net |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| webdir0a.online.lync.com | *.online.lync.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| login.microsoftonline.com | stamp2.login.microsoftonline.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| webdir.online.lync.com | *.online.lync.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| graph.microsoft.com | graph.microsoft.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| outlook.office365.com | outlook.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| appsforoffice.microsoft.com | appsforoffice.microsoft.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Table 7: Office365 SNI and CN Pairs Examples
NetSecOPEN has provided a reference enterprise perimeter traffic mix
with dozens of applications, hundreds of connections, and thousands
of transactions. (link to spreadsheet with details)
NetSecOPEN has provided a reference enterprise perimeter traffic mix
with dozens of applications, hundreds of connections, and thousands
of transactions. (link to spreadsheet with details)
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
The enterprise perimeter traffic mix consists of 70% HTTPS and 30%
HTTP by Bytes, 58% HTTPS and 42% HTTP by Transactions. By
connections with a single connection per FQDN the mix consists of 43%
HTTPS and 57% HTTP. With multiple connections per FQDN the HTTPS
percentage is higher.
Table 8 is a summary of the NetSecOPEN enterprise perimeter traffic
mix sorted by bytes with unique FQDNs and transactions per
applications.
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Application | FQDNs | Transactions | Bytes |
+=======================================================+
| Office365 | 26 | 558 | 52,931,947 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Box | 4 | 90 | 23,276,089 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Salesforce | 6 | 365 | 23,137,548 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Gmail | 13 | 139 | 16,399,289 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Linkedin | 10 | 206 | 15,040,918 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| DailyMotion | 8 | 77 | 14,751,514 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| GoogleDocs | 2 | 71 | 14,205,476 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Wikia | 15 | 159 | 13,909,777 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Foxnews | 82 | 499 | 13,758,899 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Yahoo Finance | 33 | 254 | 13,134,011 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Youtube | 8 | 97 | 13,056,216 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Facebook | 4 | 207 | 12,726,231 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| CNBC | 77 | 275 | 11,939,566 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Lightreading | 27 | 304 | 11,200,864 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BusinessInsider | 16 | 142 | 11,001,575 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Alexa | 5 | 153 | 10,475,151 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| CNN | 41 | 206 | 10,423,740 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Twitter Video | 2 | 72 | 10,112,820 |
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Cisco Webex | 1 | 213 | 9,988,417 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Slack | 3 | 40 | 9,938,686 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Google Maps | 5 | 191 | 8,771,873 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| SpectrumIEEE | 7 | 145 | 8,682,629 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Yelp | 9 | 146 | 8,607,645 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Vimeo | 12 | 74 | 8,555,960 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Wikihow | 11 | 140 | 8,042,314 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Netflix | 3 | 31 | 7,839,256 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Instagram | 3 | 114 | 7,230,883 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Morningstar | 30 | 150 | 7,220,121 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Docusign | 5 | 68 | 6,972,738 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Twitter | 1 | 100 | 6,939,150 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Tumblr | 11 | 70 | 6,877,200 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Whatsapp | 3 | 46 | 6,829,848 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Imdb | 16 | 251 | 6,505,227 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NOAAgov | 1 | 44 | 6,316,283 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| IndustryWeek | 23 | 192 | 6,242,403 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Spotify | 18 | 119 | 6,231,013 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| AutoNews | 16 | 165 | 6,115,354 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Evernote | 3 | 47 | 6,063,168 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NatGeo | 34 | 104 | 6,026,344 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BBC News | 18 | 156 | 5,898,572 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Investopedia | 38 | 241 | 5,792,038 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Pinterest | 8 | 102 | 5,658,994 |
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Succesfactors | 2 | 112 | 5,049,001 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| AbaJournal | 6 | 93 | 4,985,626 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Pbworks | 4 | 78 | 4,670,980 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NetworkWorld | 42 | 153 | 4,651,354 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| WebMD | 24 | 280 | 4,416,736 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| OilGasJournal | 14 | 105 | 4,095,255 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Trello | 5 | 39 | 4,080,182 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BusinessWire | 5 | 109 | 4,055,331 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Dropbox | 5 | 17 | 4,023,469 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Nejm | 20 | 190 | 4,003,657 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| OilGasDaily | 7 | 199 | 3,970,498 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Chase | 6 | 52 | 3,719,232 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| MedicalNews | 6 | 117 | 3,634,187 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Marketwatch | 25 | 142 | 3,291,226 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Imgur | 5 | 48 | 3,189,919 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NPR | 9 | 83 | 3,184,303 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Onelogin | 2 | 31 | 3,132,707 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Concur | 2 | 50 | 3,066,326 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Service-now | 1 | 37 | 2,985,329 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Apple itunes | 14 | 80 | 2,843,744 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BerkeleyEdu | 3 | 69 | 2,622,009 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| MSN | 39 | 203 | 2,532,972 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Indeed | 3 | 47 | 2,325,197 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| MayoClinic | 6 | 56 | 2,269,085 |
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Ebay | 9 | 164 | 2,219,223 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| UCLAedu | 3 | 42 | 1,991,311 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| ConstructionDive | 5 | 125 | 1,828,428 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| EducationNews | 4 | 78 | 1,605,427 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BofA | 12 | 68 | 1,584,851 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| ScienceDirect | 7 | 26 | 1,463,951 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Reddit | 8 | 55 | 1,441,909 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| FoodBusinessNews | 5 | 49 | 1,378,298 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Amex | 8 | 42 | 1,270,696 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Weather | 4 | 50 | 1,243,826 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Wikipedia | 3 | 27 | 958,935 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Bing | 1 | 52 | 697,514 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| ADP | 1 | 30 | 508,654 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| | | | |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Grand Total | 983 | 10021 | 569,819,095 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Table 8: Summary of NetSecOPEN Enterprise Perimeter Traffic Mix
Authors' Addresses
Balamuhunthan Balarajah
EANTC AG
Salzufer 14
Berlin 10587
Germany
Email: balarajah@eantc.de
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018
Carsten Rossenhoevel
EANTC AG
Salzufer 14
Berlin 10587
Germany
Email: cross@eantc.de
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 55]