Internet Engineering Task Force M. Hamilton
Internet-Draft BreakingPoint Systems
Intended status: Informational S. Banks
Expires: April 28, 2011 Cisco Systems
October 25, 2010
Benchmarking Methodology for Content-Aware Network Devices
draft-hamilton-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-05
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to define a set of test scenarios
which may be used to create a series of statistics that will help to
better understand the performance of network devices that operate at
nework layers above IP. More specifically, these scenarios are
designed to most accurately predict performance of these devices when
subjected to modern traffic patterns. This document will operate
within the constraints of the Benchmarking Working Group charter,
namely black box characterization in a laboratory environment.
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 http://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 28, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://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
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Clients and Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Traffic Generation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Framework for Traffic Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Multiple Client/Server Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Network Address Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. TCP Stack Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.8. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Maximum Application Connection Establishment Rate . . . . 8
4.1.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2.1. Transport-Layer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2.2. Application-Layer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4.1. Maximum Application Connection Establishment
Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4.2. Application Connection Setup Time . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.4.3. Application Connection Response Time . . . . . . . 10
4.1.4.4. Application Connection Time To Close . . . . . . . 10
4.1.4.5. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.4.6. Application Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Application Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2.1. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4.1. Maximum Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4.2. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4.3. Application Connection Setup Time . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4.4. Application Connection Response Time . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4.5. Application Connection Time To Close . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4.6. Application Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Malicious Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
4.3.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Malformed Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Appendix A: Example Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
1. Introduction
Content-aware and deep packet inspection (DPI) device penetration has
grown exponentially over the last decade. No longer are devices
simply using Ethernet headers and IP headers to make forwarding
decisions. Devices that could historically be classified as
'stateless' or raw forwarding devices are now seeing more DPI
functionality. Devices such as core and edge routers are now being
developed with DPI functionality to make more intelligent routing and
forwarding decisions.
The Benchmarking Working Group (BMWG) has historically produced
Internet Drafts and Requests for Comment that are focused
specifically on creating output metrics that are derived from a very
specific and well-defined set of input parameters that are completely
and unequivocally reproducible from testbed to testbed. The end goal
of such methodologies is to, in the words of the BMWG charter "reduce
specmanship" from network equipment manufacturers(NEM's). Existing
BMWG work has certainly met this stated goal.
Today, device sophistication has surpassed existing methodologies,
allowing vendors to reengage in specmanship. In order to achieve the
stated BMWG goals, the methodologies designed to hold vendors
accountable must evolve with the enhanced device functionality.
The BMWG has historically avoided the use of the term "realistic"
throughout all of its drafts and RFCs. While this document will not
explicitly use this term, the spirit will remain. Admittedly, the
term has an infinite number of definitions depending on the context
or environment in which it is used.
The primary purpose of this document is not to replace existing
methodologies, but to provide a more modern approach to benchmarking
network devices that complements the data acquired using existing
BMWG methodologies. Existing BMWG work generally revolves around
completely repeatable input stimulus, expecting fully repeatable
output. This document departs from this mantra, although utilizes
some of the same principles. This methodology is more focused on
output repeatability than on static input stimulus.
Many of the terms used throughout this draft have previously been
defined in "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance" RFC
2647 [1]. This document SHOULD be consulted prior to using this
document. The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has
previously defined methodologies for network interconnect devices
with RFC 2544 [2] and firewall performance with RFC 3511 [3].
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [4].
2. Scope
Content-aware devices take many forms, shapes and architectures.
These devices are advanced network interconnect devices that inspect
deep into the application payload of network data packets to do
classification. They may be as simple as a firewall that uses
application data inspection for rule set enforcement, or they may
have advanced functionality such as performing protocol decoding and
validation, anti-virus, anti-spam and even application exploit
filtering.
It shall be explicitly stated that this methodology does not imply
the use of traffic captured from live networks and replayed.
This document is strictly focused on examining performance and
robustness across a focused set of metrics that may be used to more
accurately predict device performance when deployed in modern
networks. These metrics will be implementation independent.
It should also be noted that the purpose of this document is not to
perform functional testing of the potential features in the Device/
System Under Test (DUT/SUT)[1] nor specify the configurations that
should be tested. Various definitions of proper operation and
configuration may be appropriate within different contexts. While
the definition of these parameters are outside the scope of this
document, the specific configuration of both the DUT and tester
SHOULD be published with the test results for repeatability and
comparison purposes.
While a list of devices that fall under this category will quickly
become obsolete, an initial list of devices that would be well served
by utilizing this type of methodology should prove useful. Devices
such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention devices,
application delivery controllers, deep packet inspection devices, and
unified threat management systems generally fall into the content-
aware category.
3. Test Setup
This document will be applicable to most test configurations and will
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
not be confined to a discussion on specific test configurations.
Since each DUT/SUT will have their own unique configuration, users
MUST configure their device with the same parameters that would be
used in the actual deployment of the device. The DUT configuration
MUST be published with the final benchmarking results. If available,
command-line scripts used to configured the DUT SHOULD be published
with the final results.
The lines between network boundaries are rapidly blurring. No longer
are there just single and dual-homed devices; this methodology will
be based on a fully meshed network topology. Organizations deploying
content-aware devices are doing so throughout their network
infrastructure. These devices inspect deep into the application flow
to perform quality of service monitoring, filtering, metering, threat
mitigation and more.
Figure 1 illustrates a network topology that is fully meshed.
+---+ +---+ +---+
|C/S| |C/S| |C/S|
+---+ +---+ +---+
\ | /
\ +----------+ /
\| |/
+---+____| DUT/ |____+---+
|C/S| | SUT | |C/S|
+---+ /| |\ +---+
/ +----------+ \
/ | \
+---+ +---+ +---+
|C/S| |C/S| |C/S|
+---+ +---+ +---+
Fully Meshed Device
Figure 1: Fully Meshed Device
3.1. Test Considerations
3.2. Clients and Servers
Content-aware device testing SHOULD involve multiple clients and
multiple servers. As with RFC 3511 [3], this methodology will use
the terms virtual clients/servers throughout. Similarly defined in
RFC 3511 [3], a data source may emulate multiple clients and/or
servers within the context of the same test scenario. The test
report MUST indicate the number of virtual clients/servers used
during the test. In Appendix C of RFC 2544 [2], the range of IP
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
addresses assigned to the BMWG by the IANA are listed. This address
range SHOULD be adhered to in accordance with RFC 2544 [2].
Additionally, section 5.2 of RFC 5180 [5] SHOULD be consulted for the
appropriate address ranges when testing IPv6-enabled configurations.
3.3. Traffic Generation Requirements
The explicit purposes of content-aware devices vary widely, but these
devices use information deeper inside the application flow to make
decisions and classify traffic. This methodology will not utilize
traffic flows representing application traffic, but will use the
shells of these application flows for benchmarking purposes. The
term "Application Flow" is defined in RFC 2722 [6]. Using the shell
simply means sending arbitrary payload over the established session
rather than actual application payload.
The test tool MUST be able to open TCP connections on multiple
destination ports and MUST be able to direct UDP traffic to multiple
destination ports. The transport layer payload SHOULD be alternating
zeros and ones, but MAY be random.
This document will illustrate an example mix of what traffic may look
like on a sample modern network, though the authors understand that
no two networks look alike. If a user of this methodology
understands the traffic patterns in their modern network, that user
MAY use the framework for traffic specification to evaluate their
DUT.
3.4. Framework for Traffic Specification
The following table MUST be specified for each application. In cases
where there are multiple destination ports, they should be evenly
distributed across.
o Percentage of Total Bandwidth: 25%
o Client Originated Flow Bandwidth: 15%
o Server Originated Flow Bandwidth: 85%
o Transport Protocol: TCP
o Destination Port: 80
o Average Layer 4 Flow Size: 256 kB
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
3.5. Multiple Client/Server Testing
In actual network deployments, connections are being established
between multiple clients and multiple servers simultaneously. Device
vendors have been known to optimize the operation of their devices
for easily defined patterns. The connection sequence ordering
scenarios a device will see on a network will likely be much less
deterministic. Thus, users SHOULD setup the test equipment to issue
requests at random to the virtual servers rather than in a
predictable round-robin fashion. This method will help to
appropriately reflect network deployment behavior in the test setup.
3.6. Network Address Translation
Many content-aware devices are capable of performing Network Address
Translation (NAT)[1]. If the final deployment of the DUT will have
this functionality enabled, then the DUT MUST also have it enabled
during the execution of this methodology. It MAY be beneficial to
perform the test series in both modes in order to determine the
performance differential when using NAT. The test report MUST
indicate whether NAT was enabled during the testing process.
3.7. TCP Stack Considerations
As with RFC 3511 [3], TCP options SHOULD remain constant across all
devices under test in order to ensure truly comparable results. This
document does not attempt to specify which TCP options should be
used, but all devices tested SHOULD be subject to the same
configuration options.
3.8. Other Considerations
Various content-aware devices will have widely varying feature sets.
In the interest of representative test results, the DUT features that
will likely be enabled in the final deployment SHOULD be used. This
methodology is not intended to advise on which features should be
enabled, but to suggest using actual deployment configurations.
4. Benchmarking Tests
4.1. Maximum Application Connection Establishment Rate
4.1.1. Objective
To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to
establish application-specific sessions as defined by RFC 2647 [1].
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
4.1.2. Setup Parameters
The following parameters MUST be defined for all tests:
4.1.2.1. Transport-Layer Parameters
o Aging Time: The time, expressed in seconds that the DUT will keep
a connection in its state table after receiving a TCP FIN or RST
packet.
o Maximum Segment Size: The size in bytes of the largest segment
which may be sent over a TCP connection.
4.1.2.2. Application-Layer Parameters
For each application protocol in use during the test run, the table
provided in Section 3.4 must be published.
4.1.3. Procedure
The test SHOULD generate application network traffic that meets the
conditions of Section 3.3. The traffic pattern SHOULD begin with an
application session establishment rate of 10% of expected maximum.
The test SHOULD be configured to increase the attempt rate in units
of 10 up through 110% of expected maximum. The duration of each
loading phase SHOULD be at least 30 seconds. This test MAY be
repeated, each subsequent iteration beginning at 5% of expected
maximum and increasing session establishment rate to 10% more than
the maximum observed from the previous test run.
This procedure MAY be repeated any number of times with the results
being averaged together.
4.1.4. Measurement
The following metrics MAY be determined from this test, and SHOULD be
observed for each application protocol within the traffic mix:
4.1.4.1. Maximum Application Connection Establishment Rate
The test tool SHOULD report the maximum rate at which application
connections were established, as defined by RFC 2647 [1], Section
3.7. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application
protocol present within the traffic mix.
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
4.1.4.2. Application Connection Setup Time
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application setup time, as defined by RFC 2647 [1], Section 3.9.
This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application
protocol present within the traffic mix.
4.1.4.3. Application Connection Response Time
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application session response times. This metric is defined as the
time between when the first SYN was sent and the arrival of the
corresponding SYN-ACK. This metric does not apply for non
connection-based protocols.
4.1.4.4. Application Connection Time To Close
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application session time to close, as defined by RFC 2647 [1],
Section 3.13. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each
application protocol present within the traffic mix.
4.1.4.5. Packet Loss
The test tool SHOULD report the number of network packets lost or
dropped from source to destination.
4.1.4.6. Application Latency
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average amount
of time an application packet takes to traverse the DUT, as defined
by RFC 1242 [7], Section 3.13. This rate SHOULD be reported
individually for each application protocol present within the traffic
mix.
4.2. Application Throughput
4.2.1. Objective
To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to
forward bits when using stateful applications.
4.2.2. Setup Parameters
The following parameters MUST be defined and reported for all tests:
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
4.2.2.1. Parameters
The same transport and application parameters as described in
Section 4.1.2 MUST be used.
4.2.3. Procedure
This test will attempt to send application data through the device at
a session rate of 30% of the maximum established as observed in
Section 4.1. This procedure MAY be repeated with the results from
each iteration averaged together.
4.2.4. Measurement
The following metrics MAY be determined from this test, and SHOULD be
observed for each application protocol within the traffic mix:
4.2.4.1. Maximum Throughput
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application throughput.
4.2.4.2. Packet Loss
The test tool SHOULD report the number of network packets lost or
dropped from source to destination.
4.2.4.3. Application Connection Setup Time
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application setup time, as defined by RFC 2647 [1], Section 3.9.
This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application
protocol present within the traffic mix.
4.2.4.4. Application Connection Response Time
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application session response times. This metric is defined as the
time between when the first SYN was sent and the arrival of the
corresponding SYN-ACK. This metric does not apply for non-connection
oriented protocols.
4.2.4.5. Application Connection Time To Close
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
application session time to close, as defined by RFC 2647 [1],
Section 3.13. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each
application protocol present within the traffic mix.
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
4.2.4.6. Application Latency
The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average amount
of time an application packet takes to traverse the DUT, as defined
by RFC 1242 [7], Section 3.13. This rate SHOULD be reported
individually for each application protocol present within the traffic
mix.
4.3. Malicious Traffic Handling
4.3.1. Objective
To determine the effects on performance that malicious traffic may
have on the DUT. While this test is not designed to characterize
accuracy of detection or classification, it MAY be useful to record
these measurements as specified below.
4.3.2. Setup Parameters
The same parameters must be used for Transport-Layer and Application
Layer Parameters previously specified in Section 4.1.2 and
Section 4.2.2, respectively. Additionally, the following parameters
MUST be defined and reported for all tests:
o Attack List: A listing of the malicious traffic that was generated
by the test.
4.3.3. Procedure
This test will utilize the procedures specified previously in
Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2.3. When performing the procedures
listed previously, during the steady-state time, the tester should
generate malicious traffic representative of the final network
deployment. The mix of attacks MAY include software vulnerability
exploits, network worms, back-door access attempts, network probes
and other malicious traffic.
If a DUT may be run with and without the attack mitigation, both
procedures SHOULD be run with and without the feature enabled on the
DUT to determine the affects of the malicious traffic on the baseline
metrics previously derived. If a DUT does not have active attack
mitigation capabilities, this procedure SHOULD be run regardless.
Certain malicious traffic could affect device performance even if the
DUT does not actively inspect packet data for malicious traffic.
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
4.3.4. Measurement
The metrics specified by Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.2.4 SHOULD be
determined from this test.
4.4. Malformed Traffic Handling
4.4.1. Objective
To determine the effects on performance and stability that malformed
traffic may have on the DUT.
4.4.2. Setup Parameters
The same parameters must be used for Transport-Layer and Application
Layer Parameters previously specified in Section 4.1.2 and
Section 4.2.2.
4.4.3. Procedure
This test will utilize the procedures specified previously in
Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2.3. When performing the procedures
listed previously, during the steady-state time, the tester should
generate malformed traffic at all protocol layers. This is commonly
known as fuzzed traffic. Fuzzing techniques generally modify
portions of packets, including checksum errors, invalid protocol
options, and improper protocol conformance. This test SHOULD be run
on a DUT regardless of whether it has built-in mitigation
capabilities.
4.4.4. Measurement
For each protocol present in the traffic mix, the metrics specified
by Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.2.4 MAY be determined. This data may
be used to ascertain the effects of fuzzed traffic on the DUT.
5. Appendix A: Example Test Case
This appendix shows an example case of a protocol mix that may be
used with this methodology.
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
+------------+---------------------+-------------+
| Protocol | Label | Value |
+------------+---------------------+-------------+
| Web | | |
| | Total BW | 50% |
| | Client BW | 15% |
| | Server BW | 85% |
| | Transport Protocol | TCP |
| | Destination Port(s) | 80 |
| | Flow Size | 256 kB |
| BitTorrent | | |
| | Total BW | 25% |
| | Client BW | 2% |
| | Server BW | 98% |
| | Transport Protocol | TCP |
| | Destination Port(s) | 6881-6889 |
| | Flow Size | 150 MB |
| SMTP Email | | |
| | Total BW | 10% |
| | Client BW | 90% |
| | Server BW | 10% |
| | Transport Protocol | TCP |
| | Destination Port(s) | 25 |
| | Flow Size | 40 kB |
| IMAP Email | | |
| | Total BW | 5% |
| | Client BW | 20% |
| | Server BW | 80% |
| | Transport Protocol | TCP |
| | Destination Port(s) | 143 |
| | Flow Size | 30 kB |
| DNS | | |
| | Total BW | 5% |
| | Client BW | 50% |
| | Server BW | 50% |
| | Transport Protocol | UDP |
| | Destination Port(s) | 53 |
| | Flow Size | 2 kB |
| RTP | | |
| | Total BW | 5% |
| | Client BW | 1% |
| | Server BW | 99% |
| | Transport Protocol | UDP |
| | Destination Port(s) | 20000-65000 |
| | Flow Size | 100 MB |
+------------+---------------------+-------------+
Table 1: Sample Traffic Pattern
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
the update of RFC 2434 [8] for a guide). If the draft does not
require IANA to do anything, the section contains an explicit
statement that this is the case (as above). If there are no
requirements for IANA, the section will be removed during conversion
into an RFC by the RFC Editor.
7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
RFC 2544 [2].
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance",
RFC 2647, August 1999.
[2] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[3] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC 3511,
April 2003.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. Dugatkin,
"IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.
[6] Brownlee, N., Mills, C., and G. Ruth, "Traffic Flow Measurement:
Architecture", RFC 2722, October 1999.
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices October 2010
[7] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
8.2. Informative References
[8] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Mike Hamilton
BreakingPoint Systems
Austin, TX 78717
US
Phone: +1 512 636 2303
Email: mhamilton@breakingpoint.com
Sarah Banks
Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: sabanks@cisco.com
Hamilton & Banks Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 16]