Benchmarking Working Group M. Kaeo
Internet-Draft Double Shot Security
Expires: September 2, 2008 T. Van Herck
Cisco Systems
March 2008
Methodology for Benchmarking IPsec Devices
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
The purpose of this draft is to describe methodology specific to the
benchmarking of IPsec IP forwarding devices. It builds upon the
tenets set forth in [RFC2544], [RFC2432] and other IETF Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to
extend these efforts to the IPsec paradigm.
The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The
Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect
the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Methodology Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Key Words to Reflect Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Test Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Frame Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1.1. IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1.2. UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1.3. TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Frame Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4. Time To Live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.5. Trial Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.6. Security Context Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.6.1. IPsec Transform Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.6.2. IPsec Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.6.3. IKE Keepalives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.6.4. IKE DH-group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.6.5. IKE SA / IPsec SA Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.6.6. IPsec Selectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.6.7. NAT-Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. IPsec Tunnel Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. IPsec SA Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Throughput baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. IPsec Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3. IPsec Encryption Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.4. IPsec Decryption Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Latency Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. IPsec Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.3. IPsec Encryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.4. IPsec Decryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.5. Time To First Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Frame Loss Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1. Frame Loss Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2. IPsec Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
11.3. IPsec Encryption Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.4. IPsec Decryption Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.5. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. IPsec Tunnel Setup Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.1. IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.2. IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.3. IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. IPsec Rekey Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.1. IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.2. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14. IPsec Tunnel Failover Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
15. DoS Attack Resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15.1. Phase 1 DoS Resiliency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15.2. Phase 2 Hash Mismatch DoS Resiliency Rate . . . . . . . . 35
15.3. Phase 2 Anti Replay Attack DoS Resiliency Rate . . . . . . 36
16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 40
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
1. Introduction
This document defines a specific set of tests that can be used to
measure and report the performance characteristics of IPsec devices.
It extends the methodology already defined for benchmarking network
interconnecting devices in [RFC2544] to IPsec gateways and
additionally introduces tests which can be used to measure end-host
IPsec performance.
2. Document Scope
The primary focus of this document is to establish a performance
testing methodology for IPsec devices that support manual keying and
IKEv1. A seperate document will be written specifically to address
testing using the updated IKEv2 specification. Both IPv4 and IPv6
addressing will be taken into consideration for all relevant test
methodologies.
The testing will be constrained to:
o Devices acting as IPsec gateways whose tests will pertain to both
IPsec tunnel and transport mode.
o Devices acting as IPsec end-hosts whose tests will pertain to both
IPsec tunnel and transport mode.
What is specifically out of scope is any testing that pertains to
considerations involving, L2TP [RFC2661], GRE [RFC2784], BGP/MPLS
VPN's [RFC2547] and anything that does not specifically relate to the
establishment and tearing down of IPsec tunnels.
3. Methodology Format
The Methodology is described in the following format:
Objective: The reason for performing the test.
Topology: Physical test layout to be used as further clarified in
Section 6.
Procedure: Describes the method used for carrying out the test.
Reporting Format: Description of reporting of the test results.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
4. Key Words to Reflect 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 RFC 2119. RFC 2119
defines the use of these key words to help make the intent of
standards track documents as clear as possible. While this document
uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track document.
5. Test Considerations
Before any of the IPsec data plane benchmarking tests are carried
out, a baseline MUST be established. I.e. the particular test in
question must first be executed to measure its performance without
enabling IPsec. Once both the Baseline clear text performance and
the performance using an IPsec enabled datapath have been measured,
the difference between the two can be discerned.
This document explicitly assumes that you MUST follow logical
performance test methodology that includes the pre-configuration or
pre-population of routing protocols, ARP caches, IPv6 neighbor
discovery and all other extraneous IPv4 and IPv6 parameters required
to pass packets before the tester is ready to send IPsec protected
packets. IPv6 nodes that implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] MUST
ensure that the PMTUD process has been completed before any of the
tests have been run.
For every IPsec data plane benchmarking test, the SA database (SADB)
MUST be created and populated with the appropriate SA's before any
actual test traffic is sent, i.e. the DUT/SUT MUST have Active
Tunnels. This may require manual commands to be executed on the DUT/
SUT or the sending of appropriate learning frames to the DUT/SUT to
trigger IKE negotiation. This is to ensure that none of the control
plane parameters (such as IPsec Tunnel Setup Rates and IPsec Tunnel
Rekey Rates) are factored into these tests.
For control plane benchmarking tests (i.e. IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate
and IPsec Tunnel Rekey Rates), the authentication mechanisms(s) used
for the authenticated Diffie-Hellman exchange MUST be reported.
6. Test Topologies
The tests can be performed as a DUT or SUT. When the tests are
performed as a DUT, the Tester itself must be an IPsec peer. This
scenario is shown in Figure 1. When testing an IPsec Device as a
DUT, one considerations that needs to be take into account is that
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
the Tester can introduce interoperability issues potentially limiting
the scope of the tests that can be executed. On the other hand, this
method has the advantage that IPsec client side testing can be
performed as well as it is able to identify abnormalities and
assymetry between the encryption and decryption behavior.
+------------+
| |
+----[D] Tester [A]----+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
+----[C] DUT [B]----+
| |
+------------+
Figure 1: Device Under Test Topology
The SUT scenario is depicted in Figure 2. Two identical DUTs are
used in this test set up which more accurately simulate the use of
IPsec gateways. IPsec SA (i.e. AH/ESP transport or tunnel mode)
configurations can be tested using this set-up where the tester is
only required to send and receive cleartext traffic.
+------------+
| |
+-----------------[F] Tester [A]-----------------+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| |
| +------------+ +------------+ |
| | | | | |
+----[E] DUTa [D]--------[C] DUTb [B]----+
| | | |
+------------+ +------------+
Figure 2: System Under Test Topology
When an IPsec DUT needs to be tested in a chassis failover topology,
a second DUT needs to be used as shown in figure 3. This is the
high-availability equivalent of the topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Note that in this topology the Tester MUST be an IPsec peer.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
+------------+
| |
+---------[F] Tester [A]---------+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
| +----[C] DUTa [B]----+ |
| | | | | |
| | +------------+ | |
+----+ +----+
| +------------+ |
| | | |
+----[E] DUTb [D]----+
| |
+------------+
Figure 3: Redundant Device Under Test Topology
When no IPsec enabled Tester is available and an IPsec failover
scenario needs to be tested, the topology as shown in Figure 4 can be
used. In this case, either the high availability pair of IPsec
devices can be used as an Initiator or as a Responder. The remaining
chassis will take the opposite role.
+------------+
| |
+--------------------[H] Tester [A]----------------+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
| +---[E] DUTa [D]---+ |
| | | | | +------------+ |
| | +------------+ | | | |
+---+ +----[C] DUTc [B]---+
| +------------+ | | |
| | | | +------------+
+---[G] DUTb [F]---+
| |
+------------+
Figure 4: Redundant System Under Test Topology
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
7. Test Parameters
For each individual test performed, all of the following parameters
MUST be explicitly reported in any test results.
7.1. Frame Type
7.1.1. IP
Both IPv4 and IPv6 frames MUST be used. The basic IPv4 header is 20
bytes long (which may be increased by the use of an options field).
The basic IPv6 header is a fixed 40 bytes and uses an extension field
for additional headers. Only the basic headers plus the IPsec AH
and/or ESP headers MUST be present.
It is RECOMMENDED that IPv4 and IPv6 frames be tested separately to
ascertain performance parameters for either IPv4 or IPv6 traffic. If
both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic are to be tested, the device SHOULD be
pre-configured for a dual-stack environment to handle both traffic
types.
It is RECOMMENDED that a test payload field is added in the payload
of each packet that allows flow identification and timestamping of a
received packet.
7.1.2. UDP
It is also RECOMMENDED that the test is executed using UDP as the L4
protocol. When using UDP, instrumentation data SHOULD be present in
the payload of the packet. It is OPTIONAL to have application
payload.
7.1.3. TCP
It is OPTIONAL to perform the tests with TCP as the L4 protocol but
in case this is considered, the TCP traffic is RECOMMENDED to be
stateful. With a TCP as a L4 header it is possible that there will
not be enough room to add all instrumentation data to identify the
packets within the DUT/SUT.
7.2. Frame Sizes
Each test MUST be run with different frame sizes. It is RECOMMENDED
to use teh following cleartext layer 2 frame sizes for IPv4 tests
over Ethernet media: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, and 1518 bytes,
per RFC2544 section 9 [RFC2544]. The four CRC bytes are included in
the frame size specified.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
For GigabitEthernet, supporting jumboframes, the cleartext layer 2
framesizes used are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048, 3072,
4096, 5120, 6144, 7168, 8192, 9234 bytes
For SONET these are: 47, 67, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048,
4096 bytes
To accomodate IEEE 802.1q and IEEE 802.3as it is RECOMMENDED to
respectively include 1522 and 2000 byte framesizes in all tests.
Since IPv6 requires that every link has an MTU of 1280 octets or
greater, it is MANDATORY to execute tests with cleartext layer 2
frame sizes that include 1280 and 1518 bytes. It is RECOMMENDED that
additional frame sizes are included in the IPv6 test execution,
including the maximum supported datagram size for the linktype used.
7.3. Fragmentation and Reassembly
IPsec devices can and must fragment packets in specific scenarios.
Depending on whether the fragmentation is performed in software or
using specialized custom hardware, there may be a significant impact
on performance.
In IPv4, unless the DF (don't fragment) bit is set by the packet
source, the sender cannot guarantee that some intermediary device on
the way will not fragment an IPsec packet. For transport mode IPsec,
the peers must be able to fragment and reassemble IPsec packets.
Reassembly of fragmented packets is especially important if an IPv4
port selector (or IPv6 transport protocol selector) is configured.
For tunnel mode IPsec, it is not a requirement. Note that
fragmentation is handled differently in IPv6 than in IPv4. In IPv6
networks, fragmentation is no longer done by intermediate routers in
the networks, but by the source node that originates the packet. The
path MTU discovery (PMTUD) mechanism is recommended for every IPv6
node to avoid fragmentation.
Packets generated by hosts that do not support PMTUD, and have not
set the DF bit in the IP header, will undergo fragmentation before
IPsec encapsulation. Packets generated by hosts that do support
PMTUD will use it locally to match the statically configured MTU on
the tunnel. If you manually set the MTU on the tunnel, you must set
it low enough to allow packets to pass through the smallest link on
the path. Otherwise, the packets that are too large to fit will be
dropped.
Fragmentation can occur due to encryption overhead and is closely
linked to the choice of transform used. Since each test SHOULD be
run with a maximum cleartext frame size (as per the previous section)
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
it will cause fragmentation to occur since the maximum frame size
will be exceeded. All tests MUST be run with the DF bit not set. It
is also recommended that all tests be run with the DF bit set.
7.4. Time To Live
The source frames should have a TTL value large enough to accommodate
the DUT/SUT. A Minimum TTL of 64 is RECOMMENDED.
7.5. Trial Duration
The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least 60
seconds. In the case of IPsec tunnel rekeying tests, the test
duration must be at least two times the IPsec tunnel rekey time to
ensure a reasonable worst case scenario test.
7.6. Security Context Parameters
All of the security context parameters listed in section 7.13 of the
IPsec Benchmarking Terminology document MUST be reported. When
merely discussing the behavior of traffic flows through IPsec
devices, an IPsec context MUST be provided. In the cases where IKE
is configured (as opposed to using manually keyed tunnels), both an
IPsec and an IKE context MUST be provided. Additional considerations
for reporting security context parameters are detailed below. These
all MUST be reported.
7.6.1. IPsec Transform Sets
All tests should be done on different IPsec transform set
combinations. An IPsec transform specifies a single IPsec security
protocol (either AH or ESP) with its corresponding security
algorithms and mode. A transform set is a combination of individual
IPsec transforms designed to enact a specific security policy for
protecting a particular traffic flow. At minumim, the transform set
must include one AH algorithm and a mode or one ESP algorithm and a
mode.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
+-------------+------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| ESP | Encryption | Authentication | Mode |
| Transform | Algorithm | Algorithm | |
+-------------+------------------+----------------------+-----------+
| 1 | NULL | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Transport |
| 2 | NULL | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Tunnel |
| 3 | 3DES-CBC | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Transport |
| 4 | 3DES-CBC | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Tunnel |
| 5 | AES-CBC-128 | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Transport |
| 6 | AES-CBC-128 | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Tunnel |
| 7 | NULL | AES-XCBC-MAC-96 | Transport |
| 8 | NULL | AES-XCBC-MAC-96 | Tunnel |
| 9 | 3DES-CBC | AES-XCBC-MAC-96 | Transport |
| 10 | 3DES-CBC | AES-XCBC-MAC-96 | Tunnel |
| 11 | AES-CBC-128 | AES-XCBC-MAC-96 | Transport |
| 12 | AES-CBC-128 | AES-XCBC-MAC-96 | Tunnel |
+-------------+------------------+----------------------+-----------+
Table 1
Testing of ESP Transforms 1-4 MUST be supported. Testing of ESP
Transforms 5-12 SHOULD be supported.
+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
| AH Transform | Authentication Algorithm | Mode |
+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Transport |
| 2 | HMAC-SHA1-96 | Tunnel |
| 3 | AES-XBC-MAC-96 | Transport |
| 4 | AES-XBC-MAC-96 | Tunnel |
+--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
Table 2
Testing of AH Transforms 1 and 2 MUST be supported. Testing of AH
Transforms 3 And 4 SHOULD be supported.
Note that this these tables are derived from the Cryptographic
Algorithms for AH and ESP requirements as described in [RFC4305].
Optionally, other AH and/or ESP transforms MAY be supported.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
+-----------------------+----+-----+
| Transform Combination | AH | ESP |
+-----------------------+----+-----+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
+-----------------------+----+-----+
Table 3
It is RECOMMENDED that the transforms shown in Table 3 be supported
for IPv6 traffic selectors since AH may be used with ESP in these
environments. Since AH will provide the overall authentication and
integrity, the ESP Authentication algorithm MUST be Null for these
tests. Optionally, other combined AH/ESP transform sets MAY be
supported.
7.6.2. IPsec Topologies
All tests should be done at various IPsec topology configurations and
the IPsec topology used MUST be reported. Since IPv6 requires the
implementation of manual keys for IPsec, both manual keying and IKE
configurations MUST be tested.
For manual keying tests, the IPsec SA's used should vary from 1 to
101, increasing in increments of 50. Although it is not expected
that manual keying (i.e. manually configuring the IPsec SA) will be
deployed in any operational setting with the exception of very small
controlled environments (i.e. less than 10 nodes), it is prudent to
test for potentially larger scale deployments.
For IKE specific tests, the following IPsec topologies MUST be
tested:
o 1 IKE SA & 2 IPsec SA (i.e. 1 IPsec Tunnel)
o 1 IKE SA & {max} IPsec SA's
o {max} IKE SA's & {max} IPsec SA's
It is RECOMMENDED to also test with the following IPsec topologies in
order to gain more datapoints:
o {max/2} IKE SA's & {(max/2) IKE SA's} IPsec SA's
o {max} IKE SA's & {(max) IKE SA's} IPsec SA's
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
7.6.3. IKE Keepalives
IKE keepalives track reachability of peers by sending hello packets
between peers. During the typical life of an IKE Phase 1 SA, packets
are only exchanged over this IKE Phase 1 SA when an IPsec IKE Quick
Mode (QM) negotiation is required at the expiration of the IPSec
Tunnel SA's. There is no standards-based mechanism for either type
of SA to detect the loss of a peer, except when the QM negotiation
fails. Most IPsec implementations use the Dead Peer Detection (i.e.
Keepalive) mechanism to determine whether connectivity has been lost
with a peer before the expiration of the IPsec Tunnel SA's.
All tests using IKEv1 MUST use the same IKE keepalive parameters.
7.6.4. IKE DH-group
There are 3 Diffie-Hellman groups which can be supported by IPsec
standards compliant devices:
o DH-group 1: 768 bits
o DH-group 2: 1024 bits
o DH-group 14: 2048 bits
DH-group 2 MUST be tested, to support the new IKEv1 algorithm
requirements listed in [RFC4109]. It is recommended that the same
DH-group be used for both IKE Phase 1 and IKE phase 2. All test
methodologies using IKE MUST report which DH-group was configured to
be used for IKE Phase 1 and IKE Phase 2 negotiations.
7.6.5. IKE SA / IPsec SA Lifetime
An IKE SA or IPsec SA is retained by each peer until the Tunnel
lifetime expires. IKE SA's and IPsec SA's have individual lifetime
parameters. In many real-world environments, the IPsec SA's will be
configured with shorter lifetimes than that of the IKE SA's. This
will force a rekey to happen more often for IPsec SA's.
When the initiator begins an IKE negotiation between itself and a
remote peer (the responder), an IKE policy can be selected only if
the lifetime of the responder's policy is shorter than or equal to
the lifetime of the initiator's policy. If the lifetimes are not the
same, the shorter lifetime will be used.
To avoid any incompatibilities in data plane benchmark testing, all
devices MUST have the same IKE SA lifetime as well as an identical
IPsec SA lifetime configured. Both SHALL be configured to a time
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
which exceeds the test duration timeframe and the total number of
bytes to be transmitted during the test.
Note that the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be equal to or less than the IKE
SA lifetime. Both the IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime used
MUST be reported. This parameter SHOULD be variable when testing IKE
rekeying performance.
7.6.6. IPsec Selectors
All tests MUST be performed using standard IPsec selectors as
described in [RFC2401] section 4.4.2.
7.6.7. NAT-Traversal
For any tests that include network address translation
considerations, the use of NAT-T in the test environment MUST be
recorded.
8. Capacity
8.1. IPsec Tunnel Capacity
Objective: Measure the maximum number of IPsec Tunnels or Active
Tunnels that can be sustained on an IPsec Device.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: The IPsec Device under test initially MUST NOT have any
Active IPsec Tunnels. The Initiator (either a tester or an IPsec
peer) will start the negotiation of an IPsec Tunnel (a single
Phase 1 SA and a pair Phase 2 SA's).
After it is detected that the tunnel is established, a limited
number (50 packets RECOMMENDED) SHALL be sent through the tunnel.
If all packet are received by the Responder (i.e. the DUT), a new
IPsec Tunnel may be attempted.
This proces will be repeated until no more IPsec Tunnels can be
established.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
At the end of the test, a traffic pattern is sent to the initiator
that will be distributed over all Established Tunnels, where each
tunnel will need to propagate a fixed number of packets at a
minimum rate of e.g. 5 pps. The aggregate rate of all Active
Tunnels SHALL NOT exceed the IPsec Throughput. When all packets
sent by the Iniator are being received by the Responder, the test
has succesfully determined the IKE SA Capacity. If however this
final check fails, the test needs to be re-executed with a lower
number of Active IPsec Tunnels. There MAY be a need to enforce a
lower number of Active IPsec Tunnels i.e. an upper limit of Active
IPsec Tunnel SHOULD be defined in the test.
During the entire duration of the test rekeying of Tunnels SHALL
NOT be permitted. If a rekey event occurs, the test is invalid
and MUST be restarted.
Reporting Format: The reporting format should reflect the maximum
number of IPsec Tunnels that can be established when all packets
by the initiator are received by the responder. In addition the
Security Context parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized
for this test MUST be included in any statement of capacity.
8.2. IPsec SA Capacity
Objective: Measure the maximum number of IPsec SA's that can be
sustained on an IPsec Device.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: The IPsec Device under test initially MUST NOT have any
Active IPsec Tunnels. The Initiator (either a tester or an IPsec
peer) will start the negotiation of an IPsec Tunnel (a single
Phase 1 SA and a pair Phase 2 SA's).
After it is detected that the tunnel is established, a limited
number (50 packets RECOMMENDED) SHALL be sent through the tunnel.
If all packet are received by the Responder (i.e. the DUT), a new
pair of IPsec SA's may be attempted. This will be achieved by
offering a specific traffic pattern to the Initiator that matches
a given selector and therfore triggering the negotiation of a new
pair of IPsec SA's.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
This proces will be repeated until no more IPsec SA' can be
established.
At the end of the test, a traffic pattern is sent to the initiator
that will be distributed over all IPsec SA's, where each SA will
need to propagate a fixed number of packets at a minimum rate of 5
pps. When all packets sent by the Iniator are being received by
the Responder, the test has succesfully determined the IPsec SA
Capacity. If however this final check fails, the test needs to be
re-executed with a lower number of IPsec SA's. There MAY be a
need to enforce a lower number IPsec SA's i.e. an upper limit of
IPsec SA's SHOULD be defined in the test.
During the entire duration of the test rekeying of Tunnels SHALL
NOT be permitted. If a rekey event occurs, the test is invalid
and MUST be restarted.
Reporting Format: The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed
in Section 8.1 for the maximum number of IPsec SAs.
9. Throughput
This section contains the description of the tests that are related
to the characterization of the packet forwarding of a DUT/SUT in an
IPsec environment. Some metrics extend the concept of throughput
presented in [RFC1242]. The notion of Forwarding Rate is cited in
[RFC2285].
A separate test SHOULD be performed for Throughput tests using IPv4/
UDP, IPv6/UDP, IPv4/TCP and IPv6/TCP traffic.
9.1. Throughput baseline
Objective: Measure the intrinsic cleartext throughput of a device
without the use of IPsec. The throughput baseline methodology and
reporting format is derived from [RFC2544].
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a specific number of frames that matches the IPsec
SA selector(s) to be tested at a specific rate through the DUT and
then count the frames that are transmitted by the DUT. If the
count of offered frames is equal to the count of received frames,
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
the rate of the offered stream is increased and the test is rerun.
If fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the rate of
the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.
The throughput is the fastest rate at which the count of test
frames transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number of test
frames sent to it by the test equipment.
Reporting Format: The results of the throughput test SHOULD be
reported in the form of a graph. If it is, the x coordinate
SHOULD be the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the frame
rate. There SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph. There
SHOULD be one line showing the theoretical frame rate for the
media at the various frame sizes. The second line SHOULD be the
plot of the test results. Additional lines MAY be used on the
graph to report the results for each type of data stream tested.
Text accompanying the graph SHOULD indicate the protocol, data
stream format, and type of media used in the tests.
We assume that if a single value is desired for advertising
purposes the vendor will select the rate for the minimum frame
size for the media. If this is done then the figure MUST be
expressed in packets per second. The rate MAY also be expressed
in bits (or bytes) per second if the vendor so desires. The
statement of performance MUST include:
* Measured maximum frame rate
* Size of the frame used
* Theoretical limit of the media for that frame size
* Type of protocol used in the test
Even if a single value is used as part of the advertising copy,
the full table of results SHOULD be included in the product data
sheet.
9.2. IPsec Throughput
Objective: Measure the intrinsic throughput of a device utilizing
IPsec.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Procedure: Send a specific number of cleartext frames that match the
IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate through the DUT/SUT. DUTa
will encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb which will in turn
decrypt the traffic and forward to the testing device. The
testing device counts the frames that are transmitted by the DUTb.
If the count of offered frames is equal to the count of received
frames, the rate of the offered stream is increased and the test
is rerun. If fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the
rate of the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.
The IPsec Throughput is the fastest rate at which the count of
test frames transmitted by the DUT/SUT is equal to the number of
test frames sent to it by the test equipment.
For tests using multiple IPsec SA's, the test traffic associated
with the individual traffic selectors defined for each IPsec SA
MUST be sent in a round robin type fashion to keep the test
balanced so as not to overload any single IPsec SA.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 9.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
9.3. IPsec Encryption Throughput
Objective: Measure the intrinsic DUT vendor specific IPsec
Encryption Throughput.
Topology The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a specific number of cleartext frames that match the
IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT. The DUT will
receive the cleartext frames, perform IPsec operations and then
send the IPsec protected frame to the tester. Upon receipt of the
encrypted packet, the testing device will timestamp the packet(s)
and record the result. If the count of offered frames is equal to
the count of received frames, the rate of the offered stream is
increased and the test is rerun. If fewer frames are received
than were transmitted, the rate of the offered stream is reduced
and the test is rerun.
The IPsec Encryption Throughput is the fastest rate at which the
count of test frames transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number
of test frames sent to it by the test equipment.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
For tests using multiple IPsec SA's, the test traffic associated
with the individual traffic selectors defined for each IPsec SA
MUST be sent in a round robin type fashion to keep the test
balanced so as not to overload any single IPsec SA.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 9.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
9.4. IPsec Decryption Throughput
Objective: Measure the intrinsic DUT vendor specific IPsec
Decryption Throughput.
Topology The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a specific number of IPsec protected frames that
match the IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT. The
DUT will receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec
operations and then send the cleartext frame to the tester. Upon
receipt of the cleartext packet, the testing device will timestamp
the packet(s) and record the result. If the count of offered
frames is equal to the count of received frames, the rate of the
offered stream is increased and the test is rerun. If fewer
frames are received than were transmitted, the rate of the offered
stream is reduced and the test is rerun.
The IPsec Decryption Throughput is the fastest rate at which the
count of test frames transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number
of test frames sent to it by the test equipment.
For tests using multiple IPsec SA's, the test traffic associated
with the individual traffic selectors defined for each IPsec SA
MUST be sent in a round robin type fashion to keep the test
balanced so as not to overload any single IPsec SA.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 9.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
10. Latency
This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
of the forwarding latency of a DUT/SUT. It extends the concept of
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
latency characterization presented in [RFC2544] to an IPsec
environment.
A separate tests SHOULD be performed for latency tests using IPv4/
UDP, IPv6/UDP, IPv4/TCP and IPv6/TCP traffic.
In order to lessen the effect of packet buffering in the DUT/SUT, the
latency tests MUST be run at the measured IPsec throughput level of
the DUT/SUT; IPsec latency at other offered loads is optional.
Lastly, [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] draw distinction between two classes
of devices: "store and forward" and "bit-forwarding". Each class
impacts how latency is collected and subsequently presented. See the
related RFC's for more information. In practice, much of the test
equipment will collect the latency measurement for one class or the
other, and, if needed, mathematically derive the reported value by
the addition or subtraction of values accounting for medium
propagation delay of the packet, bit times to the timestamp trigger
within the packet, etc. Test equipment vendors SHOULD provide
documentation regarding the composition and calculation latency
values being reported. The user of this data SHOULD understand the
nature of the latency values being reported, especially when
comparing results collected from multiple test vendors. (E.g., If
test vendor A presents a "store and forward" latency result and test
vendor B presents a "bit-forwarding" latency result, the user may
erroneously conclude the DUT has two differing sets of latency
values.).
10.1. Latency Baseline
Objective: Measure the intrinsic latency (min/avg/max) introduced by
a device without the use of IPsec.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: First determine the throughput for the DUT/SUT at each of
the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of frames at a particular
frame size through the DUT at the determined throughput rate using
frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested. The
stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration. An identifying
tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds with the type
of tag being implementation dependent. The time at which this
frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A). The
receiver logic in the test equipment MUST recognize the tag
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
information in the frame stream and record the time at which the
tagged frame was received (timestamp B).
The latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as per the relevant
definition from RFC 1242, namely latency as defined for store and
forward devices or latency as defined for bit forwarding devices.
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
value being the average of the recorded values.
Reporting Format The report MUST state which definition of latency
(from [RFC1242]) was used for this test. The latency results
SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for each of
the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the frame
size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that frame
size, for the media types tested, and for the resultant latency
values for each type of data stream tested.
10.2. IPsec Latency
Objective: Measure the intrinsic IPsec Latency (min/avg/max)
introduced by a device when using IPsec.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: First determine the throughput for the DUT/SUT at each of
the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of cleartext frames at a
particular frame size through the DUT/SUT at the determined
throughput rate using frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s)
to be tested. DUTa will encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb
which will in turn decrypt the traffic and forward to the testing
device.
The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration. An
identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
with the type of tag being implementation dependent. The time at
which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).
The receiver logic in the test equipment MUST recognize the tag
information in the frame stream and record the time at which the
tagged frame was received (timestamp B).
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
The IPsec Latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as per the
relevant definition from [RFC1242], namely latency as defined for
store and forward devices or latency as defined for bit forwarding
devices.
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
value being the average of the recorded values.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 10.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
10.3. IPsec Encryption Latency
Objective: Measure the DUT vendor specific IPsec Encryption Latency
for IPsec protected traffic.
Topology The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame
size through the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate using
frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.
The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration. An
identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
with the type of tag being implementation dependent. The time at
which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).
The DUT will receive the cleartext frames, perform IPsec
operations and then send the IPsec protected frames to the tester.
Upon receipt of the encrypted frames, the receiver logic in the
test equipment MUST recognize the tag information in the frame
stream and record the time at which the tagged frame was received
(timestamp B).
The IPsec Encryption Latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as
per the relevant definition from [RFC1242], namely latency as
defined for store and forward devices or latency as defined for
bit forwarding devices.
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
value being the average of the recorded values.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 10.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
10.4. IPsec Decryption Latency
Objective: Measure the DUT Vendor Specific IPsec Decryption Latency
for IPsec protected traffic.
Topology The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a stream of IPsec protected frames at a particular
frame size through the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate
using frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.
The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration. An
identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
with the type of tag being implementation dependent. The time at
which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).
The DUT will receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec
operations and then send the cleartext frames to the tester. Upon
receipt of the decrypted frames, the receiver logic in the test
equipment MUST recognize the tag information in the frame stream
and record the time at which the tagged frame was received
(timestamp B).
The IPsec Decryption Latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as
per the relevant definition from [RFC1242], namely latency as
defined for store and forward devices or latency as defined for
bit forwarding devices.
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
value being the average of the recorded values.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 10.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
10.5. Time To First Packet
Objective: Measure the time it takes to transmit a packet when no
SA's have been established.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Procedure: Determine the IPsec throughput for the DUT/SUT at each of
the listed frame sizes. Start with a DUT/SUT with Configured
Tunnels. Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame
size through the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate using
frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.
The time at which the first frame is fully transmitted from the
testing device is recorded as timestamp A. The time at which the
testing device receives its first frame from the DUT/SUT is
recorded as timestamp B. The Time To First Packet is the
difference between Timestamp B and Timestamp A.
Note that it is possible that packets can be lost during IPsec
Tunnel establishment and that timestamp A & B are not required to
be associated with a unique packet.
Reporting format: The Time To First Packet results SHOULD be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each of the
tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the frame size,
the rate at which the TTFP test was run for that frame size, for
the media types tested, and for the resultant TTFP values for each
type of data stream tested. The Security Context Parameters
defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included
in any statement of performance.
11. Frame Loss Rate
This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
of frame loss rate, as defined in [RFC1242], in an IPsec environment.
11.1. Frame Loss Baseline
Objective: To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in
[RFC1242], of a DUT/SUT throughout the entire range of input data
rates and frame sizes without the use of IPsec.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a specific number of frames at a specific rate
through the DUT/SUT to be tested using frames that match the IPsec
SA selector(s) to be tested and count the frames that are
transmitted by the DUT/SUT. The frame loss rate at each point is
calculated using the following equation:
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count
The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate. This sequence
SHOULD be continued (at reduced 10% intervals) until there are two
successive trials in which no frames are lost. The maximum
granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
granularity is encouraged.
Reporting Format: The results of the frame loss rate test SHOULD be
plotted as a graph. If this is done then the X axis MUST be the
input frame rate as a percent of the theoretical rate for the
media at the specific frame size. The Y axis MUST be the percent
loss at the particular input rate. The left end of the X axis and
the bottom of the Y axis MUST be 0 percent; the right end of the X
axis and the top of the Y axis MUST be 100 percent. Multiple
lines on the graph MAY used to report the frame loss rate for
different frame sizes, protocols, and types of data streams.
11.2. IPsec Frame Loss
Objective: To measure the frame loss rate of a device when using
IPsec to protect the data flow.
Topology If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 2. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
Figure 1.
Procedure: Ensure that the DUT/SUT is in active tunnel mode. Send a
specific number of cleartext frames that match the IPsec SA
selector(s) to be tested at a specific rate through the DUT/SUT.
DUTa will encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb which will in
turn decrypt the traffic and forward to the testing device. The
testing device counts the frames that are transmitted by the DUTb.
The frame loss rate at each point is calculated using the
following equation:
( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count
The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate. This sequence
SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
two successive trials in which no frames are lost. The maximum
granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
granularity is encouraged.
Reporting Format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
11.3. IPsec Encryption Frame Loss
Objective: To measure the effect of IPsec encryption on the frame
loss rate of a device.
Topology The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a specific number of cleartext frames that match the
IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT. The DUT will
receive the cleartext frames, perform IPsec operations and then
send the IPsec protected frame to the tester. The testing device
counts the encrypted frames that are transmitted by the DUT. The
frame loss rate at each point is calculated using the following
equation:
( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count
The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate. This sequence
SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are
two successive trials in which no frames are lost. The maximum
granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
granularity is encouraged.
Reporting Format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
11.4. IPsec Decryption Frame Loss
Objective: To measure the effects of IPsec encryption on the frame
loss rate of a device.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a specific number of IPsec protected frames that
match the IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT. The
DUT will receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec
operations and then send the cleartext frames to the tester. The
testing device counts the cleartext frames that are transmitted by
the DUT. The frame loss rate at each point is calculated using
the following equation:
( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count
The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate. This sequence
SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are
two successive trials in which no frames are lost. The maximum
granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
granularity is encouraged.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
11.5. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss
Objective: To measure the frame loss due to an IKE Phase 2 (i.e.
IPsec SA) Rekey event.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: The procedure is the same as in Section 11.2 with the
exception that the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured to be one-
third of the trial test duration or one-third of the total number
of bytes to be transmitted during the trial duration.
Reporting format: The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
test MUST be included in any statement of performance.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
12. IPsec Tunnel Setup Behavior
12.1. IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate
Objective: Determine the rate at which IPsec Tunnels can be
established.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Configure the Responder (where the Responder is the DUT)
with n IKE Phase 1 and corresponding IKE Phase 2 policies. Ensure
that no SA's are established and that the Responder has
Established Tunnels for all n policies. Send a stream of
cleartext frames at a particular frame size to the Responder at
the determined throughput rate using frames with selectors
matching the first IKE Phase 1 policy. As soon as the testing
device receives its first frame from the Responder, it knows that
the IPsec Tunnel is established and starts sending the next stream
of cleartext frames using the same frame size and throughput rate
but this time using selectors matching the second IKE Phase 1
policy. This process is repeated until all configured IPsec
Tunnels have been established.
The IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate is measured in Tunnels Per Second
(TPS) and is determined by the following formula:
Tunnel Setup Rate = n / [Duration of Test - (n *
frame_transmit_time)] TPS
The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
to exceed the duration of the test time. It is RECOMMENDED that
n=100 IPsec Tunnels are tested at a minimum to get a large enough
sample size to depict some real-world behavior.
Reporting Format: The Tunnel Setup Rate results SHOULD be reported
in the format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame
sizes. There SHOULD be columns for:
The throughput rate at which the test was run for the specified
frame size
The media type used for the test
The resultant Tunnel Setup Rate values, in TPS, for the
particular data stream tested for that frame size
The Security Context Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement of
performance.
12.2. IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate
Objective: Determine the rate of IKE SA's that can be established.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Configure the Responder with n IKE Phase 1 and
corresponding IKE Phase 2 policies. Ensure that no SA's are
established and that the Responder has Configured Tunnel for all n
policies. Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame
size through the Responder at the determined throughput rate using
frames with selectors matching the first IKE Phase 1 policy. As
soon as the Phase 1 SA is established, the testing device starts
sending the next stream of cleartext frames using the same frame
size and throughput rate but this time using selectors matching
the second IKE Phase 1 policy. This process is repeated until all
configured IKE SA's have been established.
The IKE SA Setup Rate is determined by the following formula:
IKE SA Setup Rate = n / [Duration of Test - (n *
frame_transmit_time)]
The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
to exceed the duration of the test time. It is RECOMMENDED that
n=100 IKE SA's are tested at a minumum to get a large enough
sample size to depict some real-world behavior.
Reporting Format: The IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate results SHOULD be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each of the
tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the frame size,
the rate at which the test was run for that frame size, for the
media types tested, and for the resultant IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate
values for each type of data stream tested. The Security Context
Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
be included in any statement of performance.
12.3. IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate
Objective: Determine the rate of IPsec SA's that can be established.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Configure the Responder (where the Responder is the DUT)
with a single IKE Phase 1 policy and n corresponding IKE Phase 2
policies. Ensure that no SA's are established and that the
Responder has Configured Tunnels for all policies. Send a stream
of cleartext frames at a particular frame size through the
Responder at the determined throughput rate using frames with
selectors matching the first IPsec SA policy.
The time at which the IKE SA is established is recorded as
timestamp_A. As soon as the Phase 1 SA is established, the IPsec
SA negotiation will be initiated. Once the first IPsec SA has
been established, start sending the next stream of cleartext
frames using the same frame size and throughput rate but this time
using selectors matching the second IKE Phase 2 policy. This
process is repeated until all configured IPsec SA's have been
established.
The IPsec SA Setup Rate is determined by the following formula,
where test_duration and frame_transmit_times are expressed in
units of seconds:
IPsec SA Setup Rate = n / [test_duration - {timestamp_A +((n-1) *
frame_transmit_time)}] IPsec SA's per Second
The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
to exceed the duration of the test time. It is RECOMMENDED that
n=100 IPsec SA's are tested at a minumum to get a large enough
sample size to depict some real-world behavior.
Reporting Format: The IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate results SHOULD be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each of the
tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for:
The throughput rate at which the test was run for the specified
frame size
The media type used for the test
The resultant IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate values, in IPsec SA's per
second, for the particular data stream tested for that frame
size
The Security Context parameters defined in Section 7.6 and
utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement of
performance.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
13. IPsec Rekey Behavior
The IPsec Rekey Behavior test all need to be executed by an IPsec
aware test device since the test needs to be closely linked with the
IKE FSM (Finite State Machine) and cannot be done by offering
specific traffic pattern at either the Initiator or the Responder.
13.1. IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate
Objective: Determine the maximum rate at which an IPsec Device can
rekey IKE SA's.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: The IPsec Device under test should initially be set up
with the determined IPsec Tunnel Capacity number of Active IPsec
Tunnels.
The IPsec aware tester should then perform a binary search where
it initiates an IKE Phase 1 SA rekey for all Active IPsec Tunnels.
The tester MUST timestamp for each IKE SA when it initiated the
rekey (timestamp_A) and MUST timestamp once more once the FSM
declares the rekey is completed (timestamp_B).The rekey time for a
specific SA equals timestamp_B - timestamp_A. Once the iteration
is complete the tester now has a table of rekey times for each IKE
SA. The reciproce of the average of this table is the IKE Phase 1
Rekey Rate.
It is expected that all IKE SA were able to rekey succesfully. If
this is not the case, the IPsec Tunnels are all re-established and
the binary search goes to the next value of IKE SA's it will
rekey. The process will repeat itself until a rate is determined
at which all SA's in that timeframe rekey correctly.
Reporting Format: The IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate results SHOULD be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each of the
tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the frame size,
the rate at which the test was run for that frame size, for the
media types tested, and for the resultant IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate
values for each type of data stream tested. The Security Context
Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
be included in any statement of performance.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
13.2. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate
Objective: Determine the maximum rate at which an IPsec Device can
rekey IPsec SA's.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: The IPsec Device under test should initially be set up
with the determined IPsec Tunnel Capacity number of Active IPsec
Tunnels.
The IPsec aware tester should then perform a binary search where
it initiates an IKE Phase 2 SA rekey for all IPsec SA's. The
tester MUST timestamp for each IPsec SA when it initiated the
rekey (timestamp_A) and MUST timestamp once more once the FSM
declares the rekey is completed (timestamp_B). The rekey time for
a specific IPsec SA is timestamp_B - timestamp_A. Once the
itteration is complete the tester now has a table of rekey times
for each IPsec SA. The reciproce of the average of this table is
the IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate.
It is expected that all IPsec SA's were able to rekey succesfully.
If this is not the case, the IPsec Tunnels are all re-established
and the binary search goes to the next value of IPsec SA's it will
rekey. The process will repeat itself until a rate is determined
at which a all SA's in that timeframe rekey correctly.
Reporting Format: The IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate results SHOULD be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each of the
tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the frame size,
the rate at which the test was run for that frame size, for the
media types tested, and for the resultant IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate
values for each type of data stream tested. The Security Context
Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
be included in any statement of performance.
14. IPsec Tunnel Failover Time
This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
of the failover behavior of a DUT/SUT in a IPsec environment.
In order to lessen the effect of packet buffering in the DUT/SUT, the
Tunnel Failover Time tests MUST be run at the measured IPsec
Throughput level of the DUT. Tunnel Failover Time tests at other
offered constant loads are OPTIONAL.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Tunnel Failovers can be achieved in various ways, for example:
o Failover between two Software Instances of an IPsec stack.
o Failover between two IPsec devices.
o Failover between two Hardware IPsec Engines within a single IPsec
Device.
o Fallback to Software IPsec from Hardware IPsec within a single
IPsec Device.
In all of the above cases there shall be at least one active IPsec
device and a standby device. In some cases the standby device is not
present and two or more IPsec devices are backing eachother up in
case of a catastrophic device or stack failure. The standby (or
potential other active) IPsec Devices can back up the active IPsec
Device in either a stateless or statefull method. In the former
case, Phase 1 SA's as well as Phase 2 SA's will need to be re-
established in order to guarantuee packet forwarding. In the latter
case, the SPD and SADB of the active IPsec Device is synchronized to
the standby IPsec Device to ensure immediate packet path recovery.
Objective: Determine the time required to fail over all Active
Tunnels from an active IPsec Device to its standby device.
Topology: If no IPsec aware tester is available, the test MUST be
conducted using a Redundant System Under Test Topology as depicted
in Figure 4. When an IPsec aware tester is available the test
MUST be executed using a Redundant Unit Under Test Topology as
depicted in Figure 3. If the failover is being tested withing a
single DUT e.g. crypto engine based failovers, a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1 MAY be used as well.
Procedure: Before a failover can be triggered, the IPsec Device has
to be in a state where the active stack/engine/node has a the
maximum supported number of Active Tunnnels. The Tunnels will be
transporting bidirectional traffic at the determined IPsec
Throughput rate for the smallest framesize that the stack/engine/
node is capable of forwarding (In most cases, this will be 64
Bytes). The traffic should traverse in a round robin fashion
through all Active Tunnels.
When traffic is flowing through all Active Tunnels in steady
state, a failover shall be triggered.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Both receiver sides of the testers will now look at sequence
counters in the instrumented packets that are being forwarded
through the Tunnels. Each Tunnel MUST have its own counter to
keep track of packetloss on a per SA basis.
If the tester observes no sequence number drops on any of the
Tunnels in both directions then the Failover Time MUST be listed
as 'null', indicating that the failover was immediate and without
any packetloss.
In all other cases where the tester observes a gap in the sequence
numbers of the instrumented payload of the packets, the tester
will monitor all SA's and look for any Tunnels that are still not
receiving packets after the Failover. These will be marked as
'pending' Tunnels. Active Tunnels that are forwarding packets
again without any packetloss shall be marked as 'recovered'
Tunnels. In background the tester will keep monitoring all SA's
to make sure that no packets are dropped. If this is the case
then the Tunnel in question will be placed back in 'pending'
state.
Note that reordered packets can naturally occur after en/
decryption. This is not a valid reason to place a Tunnel back in
'pending' state.
The tester will wait until all Tunnel are marked as 'recovered'.
Then it will find the SA with the largest gap in sequence number.
Given the fact that the framesize is fixed and the time of that
framesize can easily be calculated for the initiator links, a
simple multiplication of the framesize time * largest packetloss
gap will yield the Tunnel Failover Time.
It is RECOMMENDED that the test is repeated for various number of
Active Tunnels as well as for different framesizes and framerates.
Reporting Format: The results shall be represented in a tabular
format, where the first column will list the number of Active
Tunnels, the second column the Framesize, the third column the
Framerate and the fourth column the Tunnel Failover Time in
milliseconds.
15. DoS Attack Resiliency
15.1. Phase 1 DoS Resiliency Rate
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Objective: Determine how many invalid IKE phase 1 sessions can be
dropped before a valid IKE session.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: Send a burst of IKE Phase 1 messages, at the determined
IPsec Throughput, to the DUT. This burst contain a series of
invalid IKE messages (containing either a mismatch pre-shared-key
or an invalid certificate), followed by a single valid IKE
message. The objective is to increase the string of invalid
messags that are prepended before the valid IKE message up to the
point where the Tunnel associated with the valid IKE request can
no longer be processed and does not yield an Established Tunnel
anymore. The test SHALL start with 1 invalid IKE and a single
valid IKE message. If the Tunnel associated with the valid IKE
message can be Established, then the Tunnel is torn down and the
test will be restarted with an increased count of invalid IKE
messages.
Reporting Format: Failed Attempts. The Security Context Parameters
defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included
in any statement of performance.
15.2. Phase 2 Hash Mismatch DoS Resiliency Rate
Objective: Determine the rate of Hash Mismatched packets at which a
valid IPsec stream start dropping frames.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: A stream of IPsec traffic is offered to a DUT for
decryption. This stream consists of two microflows. One valid
microflow and one that contains altered IPsec packets with a Hash
Mismatch. The aggregate rate of both microflows MUST be equal to
the IPsec Throughput and should therefore be able to pass the DUT.
A binary search will be applied to determine the ratio between the
two microflows that causes packetloss on the valid microflow of
traffic.
The test MUST be conducted with a single Active Tunnel. It MAY be
repeated at various Tunnel scalability data points.
Reporting Format: PPS (of invalid traffic) The Security Context
Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
be included in any statement of performance.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
15.3. Phase 2 Anti Replay Attack DoS Resiliency Rate
Objective: Determine the rate of replayed packets at which a valid
IPsec stream start dropping frames.
Topology: The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
Topology as depicted in Figure 1.
Procedure: A stream of IPsec traffic is offered to a DUT for
decryption. This stream consists of two microflows. One valid
microflow and one that contains replayed packets of the valid
microflow. The aggregate rate of both microflows MUST be equal to
the IPsec Throughput ad should therefore be able to pass the DUT.
A binary seach will be applied to determine the ration between the
two microflows that causes packetloss on the valid microflow of
traffic.
The replayed packets should always be offered within the window of
which the original packet arrived i.e. it MUST be replayed
directly after the original packet has been sent to the DUT. The
binary search SHOULD start with a low anti replay count where
every few anti replay windows, a single packet in the window is
replayed. To increase this, one should obey the following
sequence:
* Increase the replayed packets so every window contains a single
replayed packet
* Increase the replayed packets so every packet within a window
is replayed once
* Increase the replayed packets so packets within a single window
are replayed multiple times following the same fill sequence
If the flow of replayed traffic equals the IPsec Throughput, the
flow SHOULD be increased till the point where packetloss is
observed on the replayed traffic flow.
The test MUST be conducted with a single Active Tunnel. It MAY be
repeated at various Tunnel scalability data points. The test
SHOULD also be repeated on all configurable Anti Replay Window
Sizes.
Reporting Format: PPS (of replayed traffic). The Security Context
Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
be included in any statement of performance.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
16. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individual for
their help and participation of the compilation and editing of this
document: Michele Bustos ; Paul Hoffman, Benno Overeinder, Scott
Poretsky, Cisco NSITE Labs
17. References
17.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
[RFC2393] Shacham, A., Monsour, R., Pereira, R., and M. Thomas, "IP
Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 2393,
December 1998.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
[RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.
[RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
[RFC2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
[RFC2408] Maughan, D., Schneider, M., and M. Schertler, "Internet
Security Association and Key Management Protocol
(ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.
[RFC2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.
[RFC2411] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
[RFC2412] Orman, H., "The OAKLEY Key Determination Protocol",
RFC 2412, November 1998.
[RFC2432] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking",
RFC 2432, October 1998.
[RFC2451] Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC2547] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547,
March 1999.
[RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn,
G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"",
RFC 2661, August 1999.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000.
[RFC4109] Hoffman, P., "Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version
1 (IKEv1)", RFC 4109, May 2005.
[RFC4305] Eastlake, D., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4305, December 2005.
[I-D.ietf-ipsec-ikev2]
Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17 (work in progress),
October 2004.
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
[I-D.ietf-ipsec-properties]
Krywaniuk, A., "Security Properties of the IPsec Protocol
Suite", draft-ietf-ipsec-properties-02 (work in progress),
July 2002.
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth]
Popoviciu, C., "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-03 (work
in progress), August 2007.
17.2. Informative References
[FIPS.186-1.1998]
National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital
Signature Standard", FIPS PUB 186-1, December 1998,
<http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fips1861.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Merike Kaeo
Double Shot Security
3518 Fremont Ave N #363
Seattle, WA 98103
USA
Phone: +1(310)866-0165
Email: kaeo@merike.com
Tim Van Herck
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
USA
Phone: +1(408)853-2284
Email: herckt@cisco.com
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology March 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Kaeo & Van Herck Expires September 2, 2008 [Page 40]
