Benchmarking Methodology Working Group B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft C. Rossenhoevel
Intended status: Informational EANTC AG
Expires: April 17, 2019 October 14, 2018
Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05
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 April 17, 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 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 . . . 17
7.1.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.3.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.5.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 32
7.6. Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . . 33
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.6.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 34
7.7. TCP/HTTPS Connections per second . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.7.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.7.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.7.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.7.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 38
7.8. HTTPS Transaction per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.8.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.8.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7.8.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7.8.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 42
7.9. HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.9.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.9.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.9.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.9.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 45
7.10. HTTPS Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.10.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.10.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.10.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.10.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 49
7.11. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . 50
7.11.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.11.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.11.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.11.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 52
8. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Appendix A. NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1. Introduction
15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC2647], [RFC3511]). 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
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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.
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
for 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 is applicable to all 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 avoiding external devices such as switch and
router in the testbed as possible.
However, in the typical deployment, the security devices (DUT/SUT)
are connected to routers and switches which will reduce the number of
entries in MAC or ARP tables of the DUT/SUT. If MAC or ARP tables
have many entries, this may impact the actual DUT/SUT performance due
to MAC and ARP/ND table lookup processes. Therefore, 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 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
A unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all benchmarking
tests described in Section 7. Since each DUT/SUT will have their own
unique configuration, testers SHOULD configure their device with the
same parameters that would be used in the actual deployment of the
device or a typical deployment. Users MUST enable security features
on the DUT/SUT 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 the benchmarking tests
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
described in Section 7. The table 1 below describes the RECOMMENDED
sets of feature list which SHOULD be configured on the DUT/SUT.
Based on customer use case, user can take a decision to enable or
disable SSL inspection feature for "Throughput Performance with
NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix" test scenario described in Section 7.1
To improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT configuration
including description of all enabled DUT/SUT features MUST be
published with the benchmarking results.
+---------------------------+
| NGFW |
+------------------------------------------+
| | |Included |Added to|
|DUT Features |Feature|in initial|future |
| | |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 summary, DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured as follows:
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
o All security inspection enabled
o Disposition of all traffic is logged - Logging to an external
device is permissible
o CVEs matching the following characteristics when serving the NVD
* CVSS Version: 2
* CVSS V2 Metrics: AV:N/Au:N/I:C/A:C
* AV=Attack Vector, Au=Authentication, I=Integrity and
A=Availability
* CVSS V2 Severity: High (7-10)
* If doing a group test the published start date and published
end date should be the same
o Geographical location filtering and Application Identification and
Control configured to be triggered based on a site or application
from the defined traffic mix
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
supported firewall 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:
Extra Small (XS) - supported throughput less than 1Gbit/s
Small (S) - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s
Medium (M) - supported throughput greater than 5Gbit/s and less than
10Gbit/s
Large (L) - 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
+---------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| | UD/SUT |
| | lCssification |
| | #ules |
+-----------+-----------+------------------+------------+---+---+---+
| | Match | | | | | | |
| Rules Type| Criteria | Description | Action | XS| S | M | L |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application|Application| Any application | block | 5 | 10| 20| 50|
|layer | | traffic NOT | | | | | |
| | | included in the | | | | | |
| | | test traffic | | | | | |
+-----------------------+ ------------------------------------------+
|Transport |Src IP and | Any src IP use in| block | 25| 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 | 25| 50|100|250|
| | | NOT used in the | | | | | |
| | | test | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application|Application| Applications | allow | 10| 10| 10| 10|
|layer | | included in the | | | | | |
| | | test traffic | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transport |Src IP and | Half of the src | allow | 1| 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| 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
This document specifies common test equipment configuration
parameters applicable for all test scenarios defined in Section 7.
Any test scenario specific parameters are described under test setup
section of each test scenario individually.
4.3.1. Client Configuration
This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considered while
configuring 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 respectively and a TX and RX receive windows of 32768
bytes. Client initial congestion window MUST NOT exceed 10 times the
MSS. Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum client delayed Ack
MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS 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. Client SHOULD initiate and close
TCP connections. TCP connections MUST be closed via FIN.
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,
discontinuous static address blocks. A default gateway is permitted.
The IPv4 ToS byte or IPv6 traffic class should be set to '00' or
'000000' respectively.
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)
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Based on deployment and use case 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
(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 depending on test scenario.
The browser MAY 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 MAY
be processed if the emulated browser has available connections. The
browser SHOULD advertise a User-Agent header. Headers MUST 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. Depending on test scenario, Session reuse or ticket
resumption MAY be used for subsequent connections to the same Server
endpoint IP. The client endpoint MUST send TLS Extension Server Name
Indication (SNI) information when opening a security tunnel. Cipher
suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session
of each test scenario.
4.3.2. Backend Server Configuration
This document specifies 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 and IPv6 MSS segment size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
1440 bytes respectively and a TX and RX receive windows of at least
32768 bytes. Server initial congestion window MUST NOT exceed 10
times the MSS. Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum server
delayed Ack MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS 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.
4.3.2.2. Server Endpoint IP Addressing
The server IP blocks SHOULD consist of unique, discontinuous static
address blocks with one IP per Server Fully Qualified Domain Name
(FQDN) endpoint per test port. The IPv4 ToS byte and IPv6 traffic
class bytes should be set to '00' and '000000' respectively.
4.3.2.3. HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes
The server pool for HTTP SHOULD listen on TCP port 80 and emulate
HTTP version 1.1 with persistence. 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
SHOULD be enabled based on test scenario. 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 FQDN. Cipher suite and certificate size should be defined
in the parameter section of each test scenario.
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
(FQDN) in Host Headers and for TLS Server Name Indication (SNI).
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 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 initiates traffic,
this section describes how the client steps though different
services. Once initialized, the client 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 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 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 HTTPS response object. The initial response
object to the server MUST NOT have a fixed size; its size is based on
benchmarking tests described in Section 7. Multiple additional sub-
URLs (response 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 is described in this section. The loading of
a traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init, ramp up,
sustain, ramp down, and collection.
During 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 RECOMMEND 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 does not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported performance metrics
namely; connections per second, concurrent TCP connections, and
application transactions per second. The RECOMMENDED time duration
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
for the ramp up phase is 180-300 seconds. No measurements are made
in this phase.
In the sustain phase, the test equipment SHOULD continue generating
traffic to 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 connections are established, and
no measurements are made. The time duration for ramp up and ramp
down phase SHOULD be same. The RECOMMENDED 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
entire test session. Several factors might influence stability
specifically for virtualized test beds, for example additional
workloads 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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Test bed preparation may be performed either by configuring the DUT
in the most trivial setup (fast forwarding) or without presence of
DUT.
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
+ The 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
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
+ Attributes of those featured MUST be documented
+ Any additional relevant information about features MUST be
documented
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 details 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 during the of sustain phase of the traffic
load profile described in Section 4.3.4. All KPIs MUST be measured
from the result output of test equipment.
o Concurrent TCP Connections
This key performance indicator measures the average concurrent
open TCP connections in the sustaining period.
o TCP Connections Per Second
This key performance indicator measures the average established
TCP connections per second in the sustaining period. For "TCP/
HTTP(S) Connection Per Second" benchmarking test scenario, the KPI
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
is measured average established and terminated TCP connections per
second simultaneously.
o Application Transactions Per Second
This key performance indicator measures the average successfully
completed application transactions per second in the sustaining
period.
o TLS Handshake Rate
This key performance indicator measures the average TLS 1.2 or
higher session formation rate within the sustaining period.
o Throughput
This key performance indicator measures the average Layer 2
throughput within the sustaining period as well as average packets
per seconds within the same period. The value of throughput
SHOULD be presented in Gbit/s 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 measures 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 complete response from the server.
o Application Transaction Latency
This key performance indicator measures the minimum, average and
maximum the amount of time to receive all objects from the server.
The value of application transaction latency SHOULD be presented
in millisecond rounded to zero decimal.
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.
7. Benchmarking Tests
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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)
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.
This test scenario is RECOMMENDED to perform twice; one with SSL
inspection feature enabled and the second scenario with SSL
inspection feature disabled on the DUT/SUT.
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 defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Traffic load objective or specification type (e.g. Throughput,
SimUsers and etc.)
Target throughput: It can be defined based on requirements.
Otherwise it represents aggregated line rate of interface(s) used
in the DUT/SUT
Initial throughput: 10% of the "Target throughput"
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.1.3.3. Traffic Profile
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. Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
of total attempt transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
connections
c. Maximum deviation (max. dev) of application transaction time or
TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST be less than X (The value for "X"
will be finalized and updated after completion of PoC test)
The following equation MUST be used to calculate the deviation of
application transaction latency 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 latency
or TTLB.
Initial latency:= min((avg' latency - min' latency) | (max'
latency - avg' latency))
d. Maximum value of Time to First Byte MUST be less than X
7.1.3.5. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
Mandatory KPIs: average Throughput, average Concurrent TCP
connections, TTLB/application transaction latency (minimum, average
and maximum) and average application transactions per second
Optional KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average TLS
handshake rate and TTFB
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.1.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedures are 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 test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load profile
definition 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 7.1.3.5. 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 metric measurements 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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.2. TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second
7.2.1. Objective
Using HTTP traffic, determine the maximum sustainable TCP connection
establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
To measure connections per second, test iterations MUST use different
fixed HTTP response object sizes defined in the test equipment
configuration parameters section 7.2.3.2.
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
The client SHOULD negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connection with
FIN immediately after completion of one transaction. In each test
iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTP
response object size.
The RECOMMENDED response object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16, 64 KByte
7.2.3.3. 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.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
of total attempt transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate
d. Concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be constant during steady
state. The deviation of concurrent TCP connections MUST be less
than 10%. This confirms that DUT open and close the TCP
connections almost at the same rate
7.2.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test iteration.
Mandatory KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average
Throughput and Average Time to First Byte (TTFB).
7.2.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections 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 IP
types; IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic
distribution.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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
section. The traffic load profile SHOULD 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 of each test iteration, other
KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and application
transactions per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/
SUT can support. The test results for specific test iterations
SHOULD NOT be reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially
throughput) reaches to the maximum value. (Example: If the test
iteration with 64Kbyte of HTTP response object size reached the
maximum throughput limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be
interrupted and the result for 64kbyte SHOULD NOT be reported).
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 connections 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 HTTP 1.1 traffic, determine the maximum sustainable HTTP
transactions per second supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
To measure transactions per second performance under a variety of DUT
Security inspection load conditions, each test iteration MUST use
different fixed HTTP response object sizes defined in the test
equipment configuration parameters section 7.3.3.2.
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
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 HTTP 1.1 and close the connections with FIN
immediately after completion of 10 transactions. In each test
iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTP
response object size. The RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 16 and 64
KByte
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.
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. Traffic should be forwarded at a constant rate
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 Connections per second, average Throughput, Average Time
to TCP First Byte and average application transaction latency.
7.3.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the HTTP transactions per
second 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 IP
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
types; IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed 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 HTTP 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 HTTP 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".
7.3.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target HTTP 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 of each test iteration, other
KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and connection
per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can
support. The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be
reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches
to the maximum value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte
of HTTP response object size reached the maximum throughput
limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the
result for 64kbyte SHOULD NOT be reported).
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 transactions
per second 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.3.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable HTTP 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 HTTP transaction latency
when DUT is running with sustainable HTTP transactions per second
supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTP response object sizes.
Test iterations MUST be performed with different HTTP response object
sizes twice, one with a single transaction and the other with
multiple transactions within a single TCP connection. For
consistency both single and multiple transaction test needs to be
configured with HTTP 1.1.
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Target connections per second:50% of the value measured in test
scenario TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second (Section 7.2)
Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
second"
HTTP transaction per TCP connection: one test scenario with single
transaction and another scenario with 10 transactions
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
To measure application transaction latency with a single connection
per transaction and a single connection with multiple transactions
the tests should run twice:
1st test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
connection with FIN immediately after completion of the transaction.
2nd test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 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 HTTP
response 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%.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
e. Concurrent TCP connections should be constant during steady
state. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections at
the same rate.
f. After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the target connections per
second objective defined in the parameter section 7.4.3.2 and it
remains in that state for the entire test duration (sustain
phase).
7.4.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
HTTP response object sizes separately:
average TCP connections per second and average application
transaction latency needs to be recorded.
All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
achieves the steady state.
7.4.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the average application
transaction latencies or TTLB 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 IP types
(IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic distribution),
HTTP response 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 ,e and f 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".
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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,
concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that DUT/SUT can support. The
test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be reported, if
the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
maximum value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte of HTTP
response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the result for 64kbyte
SHOULD NOT be reported).
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.
DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections 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 transactions varying the HTTP
response 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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)
Number of HTTP response object requests (transactions) per
connection: 10
HTTP response object size: 16KB, 64KB, 256KB and mixed objects
defined in the table
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 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 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
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%
7.5.3.4. Measurement
The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Average Throughput, concurrent connections, and average TCP
connections per second.
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 HTTP response 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 throughput at the
sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
acceptance criteria.
Perform the test separately for each HTTP response object size (16k,
64k, 256k and mixed HTTP response objects).
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance
criteria.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 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 connections 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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 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 April 17, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
The client must negotiate HTTP 1.1 with persistence and each client
MAY open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server endpoint IP.
Each client sends 10 GET commands requesting 1Kbyte HTTP response
object in the same TCP connection (10 transactions/TCP connection)
and the delay (think time) between the transaction MUST be X seconds.
The value for think time (X) MUST be defined to achieve 15% of
maximum throughput measured in test scenario 7.5.
The established connections SHOULD remain open until the ramp down
phase of the test. During the ramp down phase, all connections
should be successfully closed with FIN.
7.6.3.3. 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.
a. Number of failed Application transaction MUST be zero
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded constantly
at the rate defined in the parameter section 7.6.3.2
d. During the sustain phase, the maximum deviation (max. dev) of
application transaction latency or TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST
be less than 10%
7.6.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
average Throughput, max. Min. Avg. Concurrent TCP connections, TTLB/
application transaction latency (minimum, average and maximum) and
average application transactions per second.
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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 test equipment to generate background traffic ad defined in
section 7.6.3.2. Measure throughput, concurrent TCP connections, and
TCP connections per second.
While generating the background traffic, configure another traffic
profile on the test equipment to establish "initial concurrent TCP
connections" defined in the section 7.6.3.2. The traffic load
profile CAN be defined as described in the section Error: Reference
source not found.
During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial
concurrent TCP connections" plus concurrent TCP connections measured
in background traffic. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase
MUST meet the acceptance criteria "a" and "b" defined in the section
Error: Reference source not found
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 TCP
connections" defined in the parameters table. The test equipment
SHOULD follow the traffic load profile definition as described in
Section 4.3.4.
Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
connections" minus concurrent TCP connections measured in background
traffic. The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load profile
definition as described in the section Error: Reference source not
found.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, the other KPIs such as
throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
section 7.6.3.4. The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5
seconds. Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are
completed.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 concurrent TCP
connections 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 ciphers and keys defined in the parameter section
7.7.3.2
For each cipher suite and key strengths, test iterations MUST use a
single HTTPS response object size defined in the test equipment
configuration parameters section 7.7.3.2 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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 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"
Ciphers and keys:
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
sepc256r1)
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: rsa_pkscs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group:
sepc521r1)
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)
The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection with FIN
immediately after completion of one transaction. In each test
iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTPS
response object size. The RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16,
64 Kbyte.
Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
certificate (no Certificate on client side) and MUST NOT use session
reuse or resumption. TLS record size MAY be optimized for the HTTPS
response object size up to a record size of 16K.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate
d. Concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be constant during steady
state. This confirms that DUT open and close the TCP connections
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.
7.7.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections 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
7.7.3.3.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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,
concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support. The
test results for specific test iteration SHOULD NOT be reported, if
the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
maximum value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte of HTTPS
response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
DUT, the test iteration can be interrupted and the result for 64kbyte
SHOULD NOT be reported).
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 connections 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.
7.7.4.3. 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 HTTPS
transactions per second supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
To measure transactions per second performance under a variety of DUT
Security inspection load conditions, each test iteration MUST use
different fixed HTTPS transaction object sizes defined in the test
equipment configuration parameters section 7.8.3.2.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
MUST include the ciphers and keys defined in the parameter section
7.8.3.2.
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 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"
Ciphers and keys:
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
sepc256r1)
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: rsa_pkscs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group:
sepc521r1)
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)
The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection with FIN
immediately after completion of 10 transactions.
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. Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be constant and not increase
more than 10%
d. The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%
7.8.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
average TCP connections per second, average Throughput, Average Time
to TCP First Byte and average application transaction latency.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.8.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the HTTPS 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, HTTPS response 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 HTTPS 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 HTTPS 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
7.8.3.3.
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 HTTPS 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 of each test iteration, other
KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and connections
per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can
support. The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be
reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches
to the maximum value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte
of HTTP response object size reached the maximum throughput
limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the
result for 64kbyte SHOULD NOT be reported).
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 April 17, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target HTTPS
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 HTTPS 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 HTTPS traffic, determine the average HTTPS transaction latency
when DUT is running with sustainable HTTPS transactions per second
supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTPS response object size.
Test iterations MUST be performed with different HTTPS response
object sizes twice, one with a single transaction and the other with
multiple transactions within a single TCP connection.
7.9.2. 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.
7.9.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.9.3.1. 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.
7.9.3.2. 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 Section 4.3.1.2
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Cipher suites and key size: ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with
Secp521 bits key size (Signature Hash Algorithmn:
ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)
Target connections per second:50% of the value measured in test
scenario TCP/HTTPS Connections per second (Section 7.7)
Initial Transactions per second: 10% of "Target Transactions per
second"
HTTPS transaction per connection: one test scenario with a single
transaction and another scenario with 10 transactions
Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
following attributes:
To measure application transaction latency with a single connection
per transaction and single connection with multiple transactions the
tests should run twice:
1st test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the
connection with FIN immediately after completion of the transaction.
2nd test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the
connection after 10 transactions (GET and RESPONSE) within a single
TCP connection.
HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 Kbyte
objects. For each test iteration, client MUST request a single HTTPS
response object size.
7.9.3.3. 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.
Generic creteria:
a. Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections 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 and average application transaction
latency MUST be constant and latency deviation SHOULD NOT
increase more than 10%.
e. Concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be constant during steady
state. This confirms the DUT opens and closes the TCP
connections at the same rate.
f. After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the target connections per
second objective defined in the parameter section and remain in
that state for the entire duration of the sustain phase.
7.9.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
HTTPS response object sizes separately:
average TCP connections per second and average application
transaction latency or TTLB needs to be recorded.
All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
achieves the steady state.
7.9.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure average application
transaction latency or TTLB 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 IP types (IPv4 only,
IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic distribution), HTTPS
response object sizes and single and multiple transactions per
connection scenarios.
7.9.4.1. 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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 ,e and f 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".
7.9.4.2. 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,
concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
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.
DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all acceptance criteria.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target HTTPS
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.
7.9.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
acceptance criteria and measure the latency values.
7.10. HTTPS Throughput
7.10.1. Objective
Determine the throughput for HTTPS transactions varying the HTTPS
response object size.
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
MUST include the ciphers and keys defined in the parameter section
7.10.3.2.
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 Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)
Number of HTPPS response object requests (transactions) per
connection: 10
Ciphers and keys:
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
sepc256r1)
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: rsa_pkscs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group:
sepc521r1)
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
Algorithmn: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)
HTTPS response object size: 16KB, 64KB, 256KB and mixed object
defined in the table below.
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 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 HTTPS response object size
up to a record size of 16K.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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.
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 application transaction latency MUST be
less than 10%
7.10.3.4. Measurement
The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
Average Throughput, concurrent connections, and average TCP
connections per second.
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 HTTPS response 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 7.10.3.4.
The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the acceptance
criteria "a" defined in Section 7.10.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 throughput at the
sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
acceptance criteria.
Perform the test separately for each HTTPS response object size (16k,
64k, 256k and mixed HTTPS response objects).
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
Determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connections that DUT/
SUT sustains when using HTTPS traffic.
7.11.2. 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.
7.11.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.11.3.1. 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.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.11.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in the section Error: Reference source not
found. Following parameters MUST be documented for this test
scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Cipher suites and key size: ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with
Secp521 bits key size (Signature Hash Algorithmn:
ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)
Target concurrent connection: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
Initial concurrent connection: 10% of "Target concurrent
connection"
Maximum connections per second during ramp up phase: 50% of
maximum connections per second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTPS
Connections per second (Section 7.7)
Throughput for background traffic: 10% of maximum throughput
measured in test scenario HTTPS Throughput (Section 7.10)7.10
using an HTTPS response object size of 16Kbyte with a matching
cipher and key size to what is being tested in this test
The client must perform HTTPS transaction with persistence and each
client can open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server
endpoint IP.
Each client sends 10 times of GET commands requesting 1Kbyte HTTPS
response object in the same TCP connections (10 transactions/TCP
connection) and the delay (think time) between the transaction MUST
be X seconds. The value for think time (X) MUST be defined to
achieve 15% of maximum throughput measured in test scenario 7.10.
The established connections (except background traffic connection)
SHOULD remain open until the end phase of the test. During the ramp
down phase, all connections should be successfully closed with FIN.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
7.11.3.3. 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.
a. Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero.
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded constantly
at the rate defined in the parameter section 7.11.3.2
d. During the sustain phase, then maximum deviation (max. dev) of
application transaction latency or TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST
be less than 10%
7.11.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
Average Throughput, max. Min. Avg. Concurrent TCP connections, TTLB/
application transaction latency and average application transactions
per second
7.11.4. 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.
7.11.4.1. 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 test equipment to generate background traffic ad defined in
section 7.3.11.2. Measure throughput, concurrent TCP connections,
and connections per second.
While generating the background traffic, configure another traffic
profile on the test equipment to establish "initial concurrent TCP
connections" defined in the section 7.11.3.2. The traffic load
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
profile CAN be defined as described in the section Error: Reference
source not found
During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial
concurrent TCP connections" plus concurrent TCP connections measured
in background traffic. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase
MUST meet the acceptance criteria "a" and "b" defined in the section
Error: Reference source not found
If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.11.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
connections" minus concurrent TCP connections measured in background
traffic. 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, the other KPIs such as
throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
section 7.11.3.4. 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 TCP
connections 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.
7.11.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
connections within the acceptance criteria.
8. Formal Syntax
9. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
10. Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements will be added in the future release.
11. 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
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 Nair, and Tim Winters.
12. References
12.1. 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>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
Performance", RFC 2647, DOI 10.17487/RFC2647, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2647>.
[RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
RFC 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3511>.
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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
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
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| 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 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
| 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 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| 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 |
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
| | 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 | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| 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
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
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.
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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
| 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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| 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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
| 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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| 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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
| 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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| 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 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance October 2018
| 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
Carsten Rossenhoevel
EANTC AG
Salzufer 14
Berlin 10587
Germany
Email: cross@eantc.de
Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019 [Page 63]