[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09                                 
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                      B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                           C. Rossenhoevel
Expires: May 3, 2021                                            EANTC AG
                                                              B. Monkman
                                                              NetSecOPEN
                                                        October 30, 2020


    Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
                  draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05

Abstract

   This document provides benchmarking terminology and methodology for
   next-generation network security devices including next-generation
   firewalls (NGFW), next-generation intrusion detection and prevention
   systems (NGIDS/NGIPS) and unified threat management (UTM)
   implementations.  This document aims to strongly improve the
   applicability, reproducibility, and transparency of benchmarks and to
   align the test methodology with today's increasingly complex layer 7
   application use cases.  The main areas covered in this document are
   test terminology, test configuration parameters, and benchmarking
   methodology for NGFW and NGIDS/NGIPS to start with.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  DUT/SUT Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  Security Effectiveness Configuration  . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  Test Equipment Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.1.  Client Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.2.  Backend Server Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.3.  Traffic Flow Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.3.4.  Traffic Load Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Test Bed Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.1.  Key Performance Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Benchmarking Tests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.1.  Throughput Performance With Application Traffic Mix . . .  21
       7.1.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.1.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.1.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.1.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  23
     7.2.  TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.2.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.2.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.2.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.2.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  26
     7.3.  HTTP Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  29
     7.4.  TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       7.4.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       7.4.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       7.4.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       7.4.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  32



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


     7.5.  Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . .  33
       7.5.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       7.5.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       7.5.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       7.5.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  35
     7.6.  TCP/HTTPS Connections per Second  . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       7.6.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       7.6.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       7.6.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
       7.6.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  38
     7.7.  HTTPS Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       7.7.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       7.7.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       7.7.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       7.7.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  42
     7.8.  HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.8.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.8.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.8.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.8.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  45
     7.9.  Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity  . . . . . . . .  46
       7.9.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       7.9.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       7.9.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
       7.9.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  48
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   Appendix A.  Test Methodology - Security Effectiveness Evaluation  51
     A.1.  Test Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
     A.2.  Testbed setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
     A.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
       A.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters  . . . . . . . . . .  52
       A.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters . . . . . . .  52
     A.4.  Test Results Validation Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
     A.5.  Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
     A.6.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . . . .  54
       A.6.1.  Step 1: Background traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
       A.6.2.  Step 2: CVE emulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54







Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


1.  Introduction

   15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC2647], [RFC3511]).  The
   requirements for network security element performance and
   effectiveness have increased tremendously since then.  Security
   function implementations have evolved to more advanced areas and have
   diversified into intrusion detection and prevention, threat
   management, analysis of encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of
   growing importance, well-defined, and reproducible key performance
   indicators (KPIs) are increasingly needed as they enable fair and
   reasonable comparison of network security functions.  All these
   reasons have led to the creation of a new next-generation security
   device benchmarking document.

2.  Requirements

   The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119], [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Scope

   This document provides testing terminology and testing methodology
   for next-generation security devices.  It covers the validation of
   security effectiveness configurations of the security devices,
   followed by performance benchmark testing.  This document focuses on
   advanced, realistic, and reproducible testing methods.  Additionally,
   it describes testbed environments, test tool requirements, and test
   result formats.

4.  Test Setup

   Test setup defined in this document is applicable to all benchmarking
   test scenarios described in Section 7.

4.1.  Testbed Configuration

   Testbed configuration MUST ensure that any performance implications
   that are discovered during the benchmark testing aren't due to the
   inherent physical network limitations such as the number of physical
   links and forwarding performance capabilities (throughput and
   latency) of the network devices in the testbed.  For this reason,
   this document recommends avoiding external devices such as switches
   and routers in the testbed wherever possible.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   However, in the typical deployment, the security devices (Device
   Under Test/System Under Test) are connected to routers and switches
   which will reduce the number of entries in MAC or ARP tables of the
   Device Under Test/System Under Test (DUT/SUT).  If MAC or ARP tables
   have many entries, this may impact the actual DUT/SUT performance due
   to MAC and ARP/ND (Neighbor Discovery) table lookup processes.
   Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED to connect aggregation switches or
   routers between test equipment and DUT/SUT as shown in Figure 1.  The
   aggregation switches or routers can be also used to aggregate the
   test equipment or DUT/SUT ports, if the numbers of used ports are
   mismatched between test equipment and DUT/SUT.

   If the test equipment is capable of emulating layer 3 routing
   functionality and there is no need for a test equipment port
   aggregation, it is RECOMMENDED to configure the test setup as shown
   in Figure 2.

    +-------------------+      +-----------+      +--------------------+
    |Aggregation Switch/|      |           |      | Aggregation Switch/|
    | Router            +------+  DUT/SUT  +------+ Router             |
    |                   |      |           |      |                    |
    +----------+--------+      +-----------+      +--------+-----------+
               |                                           |
               |                                           |
   +-----------+-----------+                   +-----------+-----------+
   |                       |                   |                       |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   | | Emulated Router(s)| |                   | | Emulated Router(s)| |
   | |     (Optional)    | |                   | |     (Optional)    | |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   | |      Clients      | |                   | |      Servers      | |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   |                       |                   |                       |
   |    Test Equipment     |                   |    Test Equipment     |
   +-----------------------+                   +-----------------------+

                    Figure 1: Testbed Setup - Option 1













Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   +-----------------------+                   +-----------------------+
   | +-------------------+ |   +-----------+   | +-------------------+ |
   | | Emulated Router(s)| |   |           |   | | Emulated Router(s)| |
   | |    (Optional)     | +----- DUT/SUT  +-----+    (Optional)     | |
   | +-------------------+ |   |           |   | +-------------------+ |
   | +-------------------+ |   +-----------+   | +-------------------+ |
   | |     Clients       | |                   | |      Servers      | |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   |                       |                   |                       |
   |   Test Equipment      |                   |   Test Equipment      |
   +-----------------------+                   +-----------------------+

                    Figure 2: Testbed Setup - Option 2

4.2.  DUT/SUT Configuration

   A unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all benchmarking
   tests described in Section 7.  Since each DUT/SUT will have their own
   unique configuration, users SHOULD configure their device with the
   same parameters and security features that would be used in the
   actual deployment of the device or a typical deployment in order to
   achieve maximum security coverage.

   This document attempts to define the recommended security features
   which SHOULD be consistently enabled for all the benchmarking tests
   described in Section 7.  Table 1 and Table 2 below describe the sets
   of security feature list for NGFW and NGIDS/NGIPS that SHOULD be
   configured on the DUT/SUT respectively.

   To improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT configuration
   including a description of all enabled DUT/SUT features MUST be
   published with the benchmarking results.



















Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


                                +------------------------+
                                |           NGFW         |
                +-------------- +-------------+----------+
                |               |             |          |
                |DUT Features   | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL |
                |               |             |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |SSL Inspection |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |IDS/IPS        |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Anti Spyware   |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Antivirus      |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Anti Botnet    |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Web Filtering  |             |    x     |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |DLP            |             |    x     |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |DDoS           |             |    x     |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Certificate    |             |    x     |
                |Validation     |             |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Logging and    |     x       |          |
                |Reporting      |             |          |
                +-------------- +------------------------+
                |Application    |     x       |          |
                |Identification |             |          |
                +---------------+-------------+----------+

                      Table 1: NGFW Security Features

















Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


                                +------------------------+
                                |       NGIDS/NGIPS      |
                +-----------------------------+----------+
                |               |             |          |
                |DUT Features   | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL |
                |               |             |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |SSL Inspection |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Anti Spyware   |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Antivirus      |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Anti Botnet    |     x       |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Logging and    |     x       |          |
                |Reporting      |             |          |
                +-------------+ +------------------------+
                |Application    |     x       |          |
                |Identification |             |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Deep Packet    |     x       |          |
                |Inspection     |             |          |
                +----------------------------------------+
                |Anti Evasion   |     x       |          |
                +---------------+-------------+----------+

                  Table 2: NGIDS/NGIPS Security Features

   The following table provides a brief description of the security
   features.

   +------------------+------------------------------------------------+
   | DUT/SUT Features | Description                                    |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | SSL Inspection   | DUT/SUT intercept and decrypt inbound HTTPS    |
   |                  | traffic between servers and clients. Once the  |
   |                  | content inspection has been completed, DUT/SUT |
   |                  | MUST encrypt the HTTPS traffic with ciphers    |
   |                  | and keys used by the clients and servers.      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | IDS/IPS          | DUT/SUT MUST detect and block exploits         |
   |                  | targeting known and unknown vulnerabilities    |
   |                  | across the monitored network.                  |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Anti Malware     | DUT/SUT MUST detect and prevent the            |
   |                  | transmission of malicious executable code and  |
   |                  | any associated communications across the       |



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   |                  | monitored network. This includes data          |
   |                  | exfiltration as well as command and control   .|
   |                  | channels.                                      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Anti Spyware     |Anti-Spyware is a subcategory of Anti Malware.  |
   |                  |Spyware transmits information without the user's|
   |                  |knowledge or permission. DUT/SUT MUST detect and|
   |                  |block initial infection or transmission of data.|
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Anti Botnet      |DUT/SUT MUST detect traffic to or from botnets. |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Anti Evasion     |DUT/SUT MUST detect and mitigate attacks that   |
   |                  |have been obfuscated in some manner.            |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Web Filtering    | DUT/SUT MUST detect and block malicious website|
   |                  | including defined classifications of website   |
   |                  | across the monitored network.                  |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | DLP              | DUT/SUT MUST detect and block the transmission |
   |                  | of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)   |
   |                  | and specific files across the monitored network|
   +------------------+   ---------------------------------------------+
   | Certificate      | DUT/SUT  MUST validate certificates used in    |
   | Validation       | encrypted communications across the monitored  |
   |                  | network.                                       |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Logging and      | DUT/SUT MUST be able to log and report all     |
   | Reporting        | traffic at the flow level across the monitored.|
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Application      | DUT/SUT MUST detect known applications as      |
   | Identification   | defined within the traffic mix selected across |
   |                  | the monitored network.                         |
   +------------------+-------------------------------------------------

                   Table 3: Security Feature Description

   In summary, DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured as follows:

   o  All RECOMMENDED security inspection enabled

   o  Disposition of all flows of traffic are logged - Logging to an
      external device is permissible

   o  Geographical location filtering and Application Identification and
      Control configured to be triggered based on a site or application
      from the defined traffic mix





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   In addition, a realistic number of access control rules (ACL) MUST be
   configured on the DUT/SUT.  However, this is applicable only for the
   security devices where ACL's are configurable and also the ACL
   configuration on NGIDS/NGIPS devices is OPTIONAL.  This document
   determines the number of access policy rules for four different
   classes of DUT/SUT.  The classification of the DUT/SUT MAY be based
   on its maximum supported firewall throughput performance number
   defined in the vendor datasheet.  This document classifies the DUT/
   SUT in four different categories; namely Extra Small, Small, Medium,
   and Large.

   The RECOMMENDED throughput values for the following classes are:

   Extra Small (XS) - supported throughput less than 1Gbit/s

   Small (S) - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s

   Medium (M) - supported throughput greater than 5Gbit/s and less than
   10Gbit/s

   Large (L) - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s

   The Access Control Rules (ACL) defined in Table 4 MUST be configured
   from top to bottom in the correct order as shown in the table.  The
   ACL entries MUST be configured in Forward Information Base (FIB)
   table of the DUT/SUT.  (Note: There will be differences between how
   security vendors implement ACL decision making.)  The configured ACL
   MUST NOT block the security and performance test traffic used for the
   benchmarking test scenarios.






















Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


                                                       +---------------+
                                                       | DUT/SUT       |
                                                       | Classification|
                                                       | # Rules       |
   +-----------+-----------+------------------+------------+---+---+---+
   |           | Match     |                  |        |   |   |   |   |
   | Rules Type| Criteria  |   Description    | Action | XS| S | M | L |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application|Application| Any application  |  block | 5 | 10| 20| 50|
   |layer      |           | traffic NOT      |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | included in the  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic     |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-----------------------+ ------------------------------------------+
   |Transport  |Src IP and | Any src IP subnet|  block | 25| 50|100|250|
   |layer      |TCP/UDP    | used in the test |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |Dst ports  | AND any dst ports|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | NOT used in the  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic     |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IP layer   |Src/Dst IP | Any src/dst IP   |  block | 25| 50|100|250|
   |           |           | subnet NOT used  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | in the test      |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application|Application| Applications     |  allow | 10| 10| 10| 10|
   |layer      |           | included in the  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic     |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Transport  |Src IP and | Half of the src  |  allow |  1|  1|  1|  1|
   |layer      |TCP/UDP    | IP used in the   |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |Dst ports  | test AND any dst |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | ports used in the|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic. One|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | rule per subnet  |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IP layer   |Src IP     | The rest of the  |  allow |  1|  1|  1|  1|
   |           |           | src IP subnet    |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | range used in the|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test. One rule   |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | per subnet       |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-----------+-----------+------------------+--------+---+---+---+---+

                       Table 4: DUT/SUT Access List

4.2.1.  Security Effectiveness Configuration

   The Security features (defined in table 1 and 2) of the DUT/SUT MUST
   be configured effectively in such a way to detect, prevent, and
   report the defined security Vulnerability sets.  This Section defines



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   the selection of the security Vulnerability sets from Common
   Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) list for the testing.  The
   vulnerability set MUST reflects a minimum of 500 CVEs from no older
   than 10 calendar years to the current year.  These CVEs SHOULD be
   selected with a focus on in-use software commonly found in business
   applications, with a Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS)
   Severity of High (7-10).

   This Document is mainly focused on performance benchmarking.
   However, it is strongly RECOMMENDED to validate the security
   configuration of the DUT/SUT by evaluating the security effectiveness
   as a Prerequisite for performance benchmarking tests defined in the
   section 7.  The Methodology for evaluating Security effectiveness is
   defined in Appendix A.

4.3.  Test Equipment Configuration

   In general, test equipment allows configuring parameters in different
   protocol layers.  These parameters thereby influence the traffic
   flows which will be offered and impact performance measurements.

   This section specifies common test equipment configuration parameters
   applicable for all test scenarios defined in Section 7.  Any test
   scenario specific parameters are described under the test setup
   section of each test scenario individually.

4.3.1.  Client Configuration

   This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considered while
   configuring clients using test equipment.  Also, this section
   specifies the RECOMMENDED values for certain parameters.

4.3.1.1.  TCP Stack Attributes

   The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno [RFC5681] variant, which include
   congestion avoidance, back off and windowing, fast retransmission,
   and fast recovery on every TCP connection between client and server
   endpoints.  The default IPv4 and IPv6 MSS segments size MUST be set
   to 1460 bytes and 1440 bytes respectively and a TX and RX receive
   windows of 64 KByte.  Client initial congestion window MUST NOT
   exceed 10 times the MSS.  Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum
   client delayed Ack MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS before a forced
   ACK.  Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is
   declared.  All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high.  The source
   port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 - 65535.  Internal timeout
   SHOULD be dynamically scalable per RFC 793.  The client SHOULD
   initiate and close TCP connections.  TCP connections MUST be closed
   via FIN.



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


4.3.1.2.  Client IP Address Space

   The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following
   attributes.

   o  The IP blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique, discontinuous
      static address blocks.

   o  A default gateway is permitted.

   o  The IPv4 Type of Service (ToS) byte or IPv6 traffic class should
      be set to '00' or '000000' respectively.

   The following equation can be used to determine the required total
   number of client IP addresses.

   Desired total number of client IP = Target throughput [Mbit/s] /
   Throughput per IP address [Mbit/s]

   Based on deployment and use case scenario, the value for "Throughput
   per IP address" can be varied.

   (Option 1)  DUT/SUT deployment scenario 1 : 6-7 Mbit/s per IP (e.g.
               1,400-1,700 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput)

   (Option 2)  DUT/SUT deployment scenario 2 : 0.1-0.2 Mbit/s per IP
               (e.g.  50,000-100,000 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput)

   Based on deployment and use case scenario, client IP addresses SHOULD
   be distributed between IPv4 and IPv6 type.  The Following options can
   be considered for a selection of traffic mix ratio.

   (Option 1)  100 % IPv4, no IPv6

   (Option 2)  80 % IPv4, 20% IPv6

   (Option 3)  50 % IPv4, 50% IPv6

   (Option 4)  20 % IPv4, 80% IPv6

   (Option 5)  no IPv4, 100% IPv6

4.3.1.3.  Emulated Web Browser Attributes

   The emulated web client contains attributes that will materially
   affect how traffic is loaded.  The objective is to emulate modern,
   typical browser attributes to improve realism of the result set.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   For HTTP traffic emulation, the emulated browser MUST negotiate HTTP
   1.1.  HTTP persistence MAY be enabled depending on the test scenario.
   The browser MAY open multiple TCP connections per Server endpoint IP
   at any time depending on how many sequential transactions are needed
   to be processed.  Within the TCP connection multiple transactions MAY
   be processed if the emulated browser has available connections.  The
   browser SHOULD advertise a User-Agent header.  Headers MUST be sent
   uncompressed.  The browser SHOULD enforce content length validation.

   For encrypted traffic, the following attributes SHALL define the
   negotiated encryption parameters.  The test clients MUST use TLSv1.2
   or higher.  TLS record size MAY be optimized for the HTTPS response
   object size up to a record size of 16 KByte.  The client endpoint
   SHOULD send TLS Extension Server Name Indication (SNI) information
   when opening a security tunnel.  Each client connection MUST perform
   a full handshake with server certificate and MUST NOT use session
   reuse or resumption.

   The following ciphers and keys are RECOMMENDED to use for HTTPS based
   benchmarking tests defined in Section 7.

   1.  ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
       Algorithm: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256r1)

   2.  ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
       Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)

   3.  ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
       Algorithm: ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)

   4.  ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
       Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)

   Note: The above ciphers and keys were those commonly used enterprise
   grade encryption cipher suites.  It is recognized that these will
   evolve over time.  Individual certification bodies SHOULD use ciphers
   and keys that reflect evolving use cases.  These choices MUST be
   documented in the resulting test reports with detailed information on
   the ciphers and keys used along with reasons for the choices.

4.3.2.  Backend Server Configuration

   This section specifies which parameters should be considered while
   configuring emulated backend servers using test equipment.







Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


4.3.2.1.  TCP Stack Attributes

   The TCP stack on the server side SHOULD be configured similar to the
   client side configuration described in Section 4.3.1.1.  In addition,
   server initial congestion window MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS.
   Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum server delayed ACK MUST
   NOT exceed 10 times the MSS before a forced ACK.

4.3.2.2.  Server Endpoint IP Addressing

   The sum of the server IP space SHOULD contain the following
   attributes.

   o  The server IP blocks SHOULD consist of unique, discontinuous
      static address blocks with one IP per Server Fully Qualified
      Domain Name (FQDN) endpoint per test port.

   o  A default gateway is permitted.  The IPv4 ToS byte and IPv6
      traffic class bytes should be set to '00' and '000000'
      respectively.

   o  The server IP addresses SHOULD be distributed between IPv4 and
      IPv6 with a ratio identical to the clients distribution ratio.

4.3.2.3.  HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes

   The server pool for HTTP SHOULD listen on TCP port 80 and emulate
   HTTP version 1.1 with persistence.  The Server MUST advertise server
   type in the Server response header [RFC2616].  For HTTPS server, TLS
   1.2 or higher MUST be used with a maximum record size of 16 KByte and
   MUST NOT use ticket resumption or Session ID reuse.  The server MUST
   listen on port TCP 443.  The server SHALL serve a certificate to the
   client.  The HTTPS server MUST check Host SNI information with the
   FQDN if the SNI is in use.  Cipher suite and key size on the server
   side MUST be configured similar to the client side configuration
   described in Section 4.3.1.3.

4.3.3.  Traffic Flow Definition

   This section describes the traffic pattern between client and server
   endpoints.  At the beginning of the test, the server endpoint
   initializes and will be ready to accept connection states including
   initialization of the TCP stack as well as bound HTTP and HTTPS
   servers.  When a client endpoint is needed, it will initialize and be
   given attributes such as a MAC and IP address.  The behavior of the
   client is to sweep through the given server IP space, sequentially
   generating a recognizable service by the DUT.  Thus, a balanced, mesh
   between client endpoints and server endpoints will be generated in a



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   client port server port combination.  Each client endpoint performs
   the same actions as other endpoints, with the difference being the
   source IP of the client endpoint and the target server IP pool.  The
   client MUST use the servers IP address or Fully Qualified Domain
   Names (FQDN) in Host Headers.  For TLS the client MAY use Server Name
   Indication (SNI).

4.3.3.1.  Description of Intra-Client Behavior

   Client endpoints are independent of other clients that are
   concurrently executing.  When a client endpoint initiates traffic,
   this section describes how the client steps through different
   services.  Once the test is initialized, the client endpoints SHOULD
   randomly hold (perform no operation) for a few milliseconds to allow
   for better randomization of the start of client traffic.  Each client
   will either open a new TCP connection or connect to a TCP persistence
   stack still open to that specific server.  At any point that the
   service profile may require encryption, a TLS encryption tunnel will
   form presenting the URL or IP address request to the server.  If
   using SNI, the server will then perform an SNI name check with the
   proposed FQDN compared to the domain embedded in the certificate.
   Only when correct, will the server process the HTTPS response object.
   The initial response object to the server MUST NOT have a fixed size;
   its size is based on benchmarking tests described in Section 7.
   Multiple additional sub-URLs (response objects on the service page)
   MAY be requested simultaneously.  This MAY be to the same server IP
   as the initial URL.  Each sub-object will also use a conical FQDN and
   URL path, as observed in the traffic mix used.

4.3.4.  Traffic Load Profile

   The loading of traffic is described in this section.  The loading of
   a traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init, ramp up,
   sustain, ramp down, and collection.

   1.  During the Init phase, testbed devices including the client and
       server endpoints should negotiate layer 2-3 connectivity such as
       MAC learning and ARP.  Only after successful MAC learning or ARP/
       ND resolution SHALL the test iteration move to the next phase.
       No measurements are made in this phase.  The minimum RECOMMEND
       time for Init phase is 5 seconds.  During this phase, the
       emulated clients SHOULD NOT initiate any sessions with the DUT/
       SUT, in contrast, the emulated servers should be ready to accept
       requests from DUT/SUT or from emulated clients.

   2.  In the ramp up phase, the test equipment SHOULD start to generate
       the test traffic.  It SHOULD use a set approximate number of
       unique client IP addresses actively to generate traffic.  The



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


       traffic SHOULD ramp from zero to desired target objective.  The
       target objective will be defined for each benchmarking test.  The
       duration for the ramp up phase MUST be configured long enough, so
       that the test equipment does not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported
       performance metrics namely; connections per second, throughput,
       concurrent TCP connections, and application transactions per
       second.  No measurements are made in this phase.

   3.  In the sustain phase, the test equipment SHOULD continue
       generating traffic to constant target value for a constant number
       of active client IPs.  The minimum RECOMMENDED time duration for
       sustain phase is 300 seconds.  This is the phase where
       measurements occur.

   4.  In the ramp down/close phase, no new connections are established,
       and no measurements are made.  The time duration for ramp up and
       ramp down phase SHOULD be the same.

   5.  The last phase is administrative and will occur when the test
       equipment merges and collates the report data.

5.  Test Bed Considerations

   This section recommends steps to control the test environment and
   test equipment, specifically focusing on virtualized environments and
   virtualized test equipment.

   1.  Ensure that any ancillary switching or routing functions between
       the system under test and the test equipment do not limit the
       performance of the traffic generator.  This is specifically
       important for virtualized components (vSwitches, vRouters).

   2.  Verify that the performance of the test equipment matches and
       reasonably exceeds the expected maximum performance of the system
       under test.

   3.  Assert that the testbed characteristics are stable during the
       entire test session.  Several factors might influence stability
       specifically for virtualized test beds.  For example additional
       workloads in a virtualized system, load balancing, and movement
       of virtual machines during the test, or simple issues such as
       additional heat created by high workloads leading to an emergency
       CPU performance reduction.

   Testbed reference pre-tests help to ensure that the maximum desired
   traffic generator aspects such as throughput, transaction per second,
   connection per second, concurrent connection, and latency.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Once the desired maximum performance goals for the system under test
   have been identified, a safety margin of 10% SHOULD be added for
   throughput and subtracted for maximum latency and maximum packet
   loss.

   Testbed preparation may be performed either by configuring the DUT in
   the most trivial setup (fast forwarding) or without presence of the
   DUT.

6.  Reporting

   This section describes how the final report should be formatted and
   presented.  The final test report MAY have two major sections;
   Introduction and result sections.  The following attributes SHOULD be
   present in the introduction section of the test report.

   1.  The time and date of the execution of the test MUST be prominent.

   2.  Summary of testbed software and Hardware details

       A.  DUT/SUT Hardware/Virtual Configuration

           +  This section SHOULD clearly identify the make and model of
              the DUT/SUT

           +  The port interfaces, including speed and link information
              MUST be documented.

           +  If the DUT/SUT is a Virtual Network Function (VNF),
              host(server) hardware and software details, interface
              acceleration type such as DPDK and SR-IOV used CPU cores,
              used RAM, and the resource sharing (e.g.  Pinning details
              and NUMA Node) configuration MUST be documented.  The
              virtual components such as Hypervisor, virtual switch
              version MUST be also documented.

           +  Any additional hardware relevant to the DUT/SUT such as
              controllers MUST be documented

       B.  DUT/SUT Software

           +  The operating system name MUST be documented

           +  The version MUST be documented

           +  The specific configuration MUST be documented

       C.  DUT/SUT Enabled Features



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


           +  Configured DUT/SUT features (see Table 1 and Table 2) MUST
              be documented

           +  Attributes of those featured MUST be documented

           +  Any additional relevant information about features MUST be
              documented

       D.  Test equipment hardware and software

           +  Test equipment vendor name

           +  Hardware details including model number, interface type

           +  Test equipment firmware and test application software
              version

       E.  Key test parameters

           +  Used cipher suites and keys

           +  IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution

           +  Number of configured ACL

       F.  Details of application traffic mix used in the test scenario
           Throughput Performance With Application Traffic Mix
           (Section 7.1)

           +  Name of applications and layer 7 protocols

           +  Percentage of emulated traffic for each application and
              layer 7 protocols

           +  Percentage of encrypted traffic and used cipher suites and
              keys (The RECOMMENDED ciphers and keys are defined in
              Section 4.3.1.3)

           +  Used object sizes for each application and layer 7
              protocols

   3.  Results Summary / Executive Summary

       1.  Results SHOULD resemble a pyramid in how it is reported, with
           the introduction section documenting the summary of results
           in a prominent, easy to read block.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


       2.  In the result section of the test report, the following
           attributes should be present for each test scenario.

           a.  KPIs MUST be documented separately for each test
               scenario.  The format of the KPI metrics should be
               presented as described in Section 6.1.

           b.  The next level of details SHOULD be graphs showing each
               of these metrics over the duration (sustain phase) of the
               test.  This allows the user to see the measured
               performance stability changes over time.

6.1.  Key Performance Indicators

   This section lists key performance indicators (KPIs) for overall
   benchmarking test scenarios.  All KPIs MUST be measured during the
   sustain phase of the traffic load profile described in Section 4.3.4.
   All KPIs MUST be measured from the result output of test equipment.

   o  Concurrent TCP Connections
      This KPI measures the average concurrent open TCP connections in
      the sustaining period.

   o  TCP Connections Per Second
      This KPI measures the average established TCP connections per
      second in the sustaining period.  Also this KPI measures average
      established and terminated TCP connections per second
      simultaneously for the test scenarios "TCP/HTTP(S) Connection Per
      Second" defined in Section 7.2 and Section 7.6.

   o  Application Transactions Per Second
      This KPI measures the average successfully completed application
      transactions per second in the sustaining period.

   o  TLS Handshake Rate
      This KPI measures the average TLS 1.2 or higher session formation
      rate within the sustaining period.

   o  Throughput
      This KPI measures the average Layer 2 throughput within the
      sustaining period as well as average packets per seconds within
      the same period.  The value of throughput SHOULD be presented in
      Gbit/s rounded to two places of precision with a more specific
      Kbit/s in parenthesis.  Optionally, goodput MAY also be logged as
      an average goodput rate measured over the same period.  Goodput
      result SHALL also be presented in the same format as throughput.

   o  URL Response time / Time to Last Byte (TTLB)



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


      This KPI measures the minimum, average and maximum per URL
      response time in the sustaining period.  The latency is measured
      at Client and in this case, would be the time duration between
      sending a GET request from Client and the receival of the complete
      response from the server.

   o  Time to First Byte (TTFB)
      This KPI will measure minimum, average and maximum the time to
      first byte.  TTFB is the elapsed time between sending the SYN
      packet from the client and receiving the first byte of application
      date from the DUT/SUT.  TTFB SHOULD be expressed in millisecond.

7.  Benchmarking Tests

7.1.  Throughput Performance With Application Traffic Mix

7.1.1.  Objective

   Using a relevant application traffic mix, determine the maximum
   sustainable throughput performance supported by the DUT/SUT.

   Based on customer use case, users can choose the application traffic
   mix for this test.  The details about the traffic mix MUST be
   documented in the report.  At least the following traffic mix details
   MUST be documented and reported together with the test results:

      Name of applications and layer 7 protocols

      Percentage of emulated traffic for each application and layer 7
      protocols

      Percentage of encrypted traffic and used cipher suites and keys
      (The RECOMMENDED ciphers and keys are defined in Section 4.3.1.3)

      Used object sizes for each application and layer 7 protocols

7.1.2.  Test Setup

   Testbed setup MUST be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any test
   scenario specific test bed configuration changes MUST be documented.

7.1.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, the test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be
   defined.






Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.1.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.  In case the DUT is configured without
   SSL inspection feature, the test report MUST explain the implications
   of this to the relevant application traffic mix encrypted traffic.

7.1.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   noted for this test scenario:

      Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

      Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
      Section 4.3.1.2

      Target throughput: It can be defined based on requirements.
      Otherwise, it represents aggregated line rate of interface(s) used
      in the DUT/SUT

      Initial throughput: 10% of the "Target throughput"

      One of the ciphers and keys defined in Section 4.3.1.3 are
      RECOMMENDED to use for this test scenario.

7.1.3.3.  Traffic Profile

   Traffic profile: Test scenario MUST be run with a relevant
   application traffic mix profile.

7.1.3.4.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of total attempt transactions

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.1.3.5.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   Mandatory KPIs: average Throughput, TTFB (minimum, average, and
   maximum), TTLB (minimum, average, and maximum) and average
   Application Transactions Per Second

   Note: TTLB MUST be reported along with min, max, and avg object size
   used in the traffic profile.

   Optional KPIs: average TCP Connections Per Second and average TLS
   Handshake Rate

7.1.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedures are designed to measure the throughput
   performance of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
   profile.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.

7.1.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to generate test
   traffic at the "Initial throughput" rate as described in the
   parameters Section 7.1.3.2.  The test equipment SHOULD follow the
   traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.  The
   DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial throughput" during the sustain
   phase.  Measure all KPI as defined in Section 7.1.3.5.  The measured
   KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet validation criteria "a" and
   "b" defined in Section 7.1.3.4.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to step 2.

7.1.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to generate traffic at the "Target
   throughput" rate defined in the parameter table.  The test equipment
   SHOULD follow the traffic load profile definition as described in
   Section 4.3.4.  The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record
   all specified KPIs.  The frequency of KPI metric measurements SHOULD
   be 2 seconds.  Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are
   completed.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target throughput during
   the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all
   validation criteria.  Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet
   the validation criteria.

7.1.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   validation criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
   test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.2.  TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second

7.2.1.  Objective

   Using HTTP traffic, determine the maximum sustainable TCP connection
   establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
   throughput load conditions.

   To measure connections per second, test iterations MUST use different
   fixed HTTP response object sizes defined in Section 7.2.3.2.

7.2.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.2.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.2.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.2.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target connections per second: Initial value from product datasheet
   (if known)

   Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
   second" (an optional parameter for documentation)

   The client SHOULD negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connection with
   FIN immediately after completion of one transaction.  In each test
   iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTP
   response object size.

   The RECOMMENDED response object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16, 64 KByte

7.2.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of total attempt transactions

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
       constant rate

   d.  Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
       and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
       than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
       almost at the same rate

7.2.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metric MUST be reported for each test iteration.

   average TCP Connections Per Second








Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.2.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections per
   second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of the traffic
   load profile.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.
   This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IP
   types; IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic
   distribution.

7.2.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.

   Configure the traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "initial connections per second" as defined in the parameters
   Section 7.2.3.2.  The traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as
   described in Section 4.3.4.

   The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial connections per second" before
   the sustain phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
   meet validation criteria a, b, c, and d defined in Section 7.2.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.2.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
   defined in the parameters table.  The test equipment SHOULD follow
   the traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.

   During the ramp up and sustain phase of each test iteration, other
   KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and application
   transactions per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/
   SUT can support.  The test results for specific test iterations
   SHOULD NOT be reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially
   throughput) reaches the maximum value.  (Example: If the test
   iteration with 64 KByte of HTTP response object size reached the
   maximum throughput limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be
   interrupted and the result for 64 KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.  Continue
   the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.






Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections per
   second rate at the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs
   MUST meet all validation criteria.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.2.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable connections per second
   within the validation criteria.

7.3.  HTTP Throughput

7.3.1.  Objective

   Determine the throughput for HTTP transactions varying the HTTP
   response object size.

7.3.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.

7.3.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.3.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.3.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Target Throughput: Initial value from product datasheet (if known)

   Initial Throughput: 10% of "Target Throughput" (an optional parameter
   for documentation)

   Number of HTTP response object requests (transactions) per
   connection: 10

   RECOMMENDED HTTP response object size: 1 KByte, 16 KByte, 64 KByte,
   256 KByte and mixed objects defined in the table

   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
   |                     | Weight              |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 0.2                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 6                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 8                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 9                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 10                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 25                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 26                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 35                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 59                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 347                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+

                          Table 4: Mixed Objects

7.3.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   b.  Traffic should be forwarded constantly.

   c.  Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
       and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
       than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
       almost at the same rate

7.3.3.4.  Measurement

   The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   average Throughput and average HTTP Transactions per Second

7.3.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure HTTP throughput of the DUT/
   SUT.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This test
   procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
   traffic distribution and HTTP response object sizes.

7.3.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "Initial Throughput" as defined in the parameters Section 7.3.3.2.

   The traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as described in
   Section 4.3.4.  The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial Throughput"
   during the sustain phase.  Measure all KPI as defined in
   Section 7.3.3.4.

   The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the validation
   criteria "a" defined in Section 7.3.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.3.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.  Continue
   the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired "Target Throughput" at
   the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
   validation criteria.



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Perform the test separately for each HTTP response object size.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.3.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   validation criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
   test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.4.  TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency

7.4.1.  Objective

   Using HTTP traffic, determine the average HTTP transaction latency
   when DUT is running with sustainable HTTP transactions per second
   supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTP response object sizes.

   Test iterations MUST be performed with different HTTP response object
   sizes in two different scenarios.one with a single transaction and
   the other with multiple transactions within a single TCP connection.
   For consistency both the single and multiple transaction test MUST be
   configured with HTTP 1.1.

   Scenario 1: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
   connection with FIN immediately after completion of a single
   transaction (GET and RESPONSE).

   Scenario 2: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
   connection FIN immediately after completion of 10 transactions (GET
   and RESPONSE) within a single TCP connection.

7.4.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.4.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.4.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.4.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3 . Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target objective for scenario 1: 50% of the maximum connection per
   second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second
   (Section 7.2)

   Target objective for scenario 2: 50% of the maximum throughput
   measured in test scenario HTTP Throughput (Section 7.3)

   Initial objective for scenario 1: 10% of Target objective for
   scenario 1" (an optional parameter for documentation)

   Initial objective for scenario 2: 10% of "Target objective for
   scenario 2" (an optional parameter for documentation)

   HTTP transaction per TCP connection: test scenario 1 with single
   transaction and the second scenario with 10 transactions

   HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting a single object.  The
   RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 16 or 64 KByte.  For each test
   iteration, client MUST request a single HTTP response object size.

7.4.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.  Ramp up and
   ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.

   Generic criteria:

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.






Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
       constant rate.

   d.  Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
       and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
       than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
       almost at the same rate

   e.  After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the "Target objective" defined
       in the parameter Section 7.4.3.2 and remain in that state for the
       entire test duration (sustain phase).

7.4.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
   HTTP response object sizes separately:

   TTFB (minimum, average and maximum) and TTLB (minimum, average and
   maximum)

   All KPI's are measured once the target throughput achieves the steady
   state.

7.4.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the average application
   transaction latencies or TTLB when the DUT is operating close to 50%
   of its maximum achievable throughput or connections per second.  This
   test procedure CAN be repeated multiple times with different IP types
   (IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic distribution),
   HTTP response object sizes and single and multiple transactions per
   connection scenarios.

7.4.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "Initial objective" as defined in the parameters Section 7.4.3.2.
   The traffic load profile can be defined as described in
   Section 4.3.4.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial objective" before the sustain
   phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the
   validation criteria a, b, c, d, e and f defined in Section 7.4.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.4.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target objective" defined in
   the parameters table.  The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic
   load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.

   During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
   concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
   MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support.
   The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be reported,
   if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
   maximum value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64 KByte of HTTP
   response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
   DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the result for 64
   KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.  Continue
   the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.  DUT/SUT is
   expected to reach the desired "Target objective" at the sustain
   phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all validation
   criteria.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.4.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
   validation criteria and measure the latency values.

7.5.  Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity

7.5.1.  Objective

   Determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connections that the
   DUT/ SUT sustains when using HTTP traffic.







Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.5.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.

7.5.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.5.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.5.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   noted for this test scenario:

      Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

      Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
      Section 4.3.1.2

      Target concurrent connection: Initial value from product datasheet
      (if known)

      Initial concurrent connection: 10% of "Target concurrent
      connection" (an optional parameter for documentation)

      Maximum connections per second during ramp up phase: 50% of
      maximum connections per second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTP
      Connections per second (Section 7.2)

      Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Target concurrent
      connection"): "Target concurrent connection" / "Maximum
      connections per second during ramp up phase"

      Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Initial concurrent
      connection"): "Initial concurrent connection" / "Maximum
      connections per second during ramp up phase"





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 with persistence and each client
   MAY open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server endpoint IP.

   Each client sends 10 GET commands requesting 1 KByte HTTP response
   object in the same TCP connection (10 transactions/TCP connection)
   and the delay (think time) between the transaction MUST be X seconds.

   X = ("Ramp up time" + "steady state time") /10

   The established connections SHOULD remain open until the ramp down
   phase of the test.  During the ramp down phase, all connections
   SHOULD be successfully closed with FIN.

7.5.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transaction) of total attempted transactions

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic SHOULD be forwarded constantly

7.5.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metric MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   average Concurrent TCP Connections

7.5.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the concurrent TCP
   connection capacity of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of
   traffic load profile.  The test procedure consists of three major
   steps.  This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with
   different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution.

7.5.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Configure test equipment to establish "Initial concurrent TCP
   connections" defined in Section 7.5.3.2.  Except ramp up time, the
   traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as described in Section 4.3.4.

   During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial
   concurrent TCP connections".  The measured KPIs during the sustain
   phase MUST meet the validation criteria "a" and "b" defined in
   Section 7.5.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.5.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
   connections".  The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load
   profile definition (except ramp up time) as described in
   Section 4.3.4.

   During the ramp up and sustain phase, the other KPIs such as
   throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
   per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
   support.

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
   Section 7.5.3.4.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.
   Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target concurrent
   connection at the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs must
   meet all validation criteria.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.5.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
   connections capacity within the validation criteria.

7.6.  TCP/HTTPS Connections per Second

7.6.1.  Objective

   Using HTTPS traffic, determine the maximum sustainable SSL/TLS
   session establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
   throughput load conditions.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
   as well as forward looking stronger keys.  Specific test iterations
   MUST include ciphers and keys defined in Section 7.6.3.2.

   For each cipher suite and key strengths, test iterations MUST use a
   single HTTPS response object size defined in the test equipment
   configuration parameters Section 7.6.3.2 to measure connections per
   second performance under a variety of DUT Security inspection load
   conditions.

7.6.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.6.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.6.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.6.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target connections per second: Initial value from product datasheet
   (if known)

   Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
   second" (an optional parameter for documentation)

   RECOMMENDED ciphers and keys defined in Section 4.3.1.3





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection with FIN
   immediately after completion of one transaction.  In each test
   iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTPS
   response object size.  The RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16,
   64 KByte.

7.6.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria:

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
       constant rate

   d.  Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
       and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
       than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
       almost at the same rate

7.6.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   average TCP Connections Per Second, average TLS Handshake Rate (TLS
   Handshake Rate can be measured in the test scenario using 1KB object
   size)

7.6.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections per
   second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
   profile.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This
   test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
   IPv6 traffic distribution.

7.6.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "Initial connections per second" as defined in Section 7.6.3.2.  The
   traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in Section 4.3.4.

   The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial connections per second" before
   the sustain phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
   meet the validation criteria a, b, c, and d defined in
   Section 7.6.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.6.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
   defined in the parameters table.  The test equipment SHOULD follow
   the traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.

   During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
   concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
   MUST NOT reach the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support.  The
   test results for specific test iteration SHOULD NOT be reported, if
   the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches the maximum
   value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64 KByte of HTTPS
   response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
   DUT, the test iteration can be interrupted and the result for 64
   KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.  Continue
   the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections per
   second rate at the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs
   must meet all validation criteria.

   Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.6.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable connections per second
   within the validation criteria.








Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.7.  HTTPS Throughput

7.7.1.  Objective

   Determine the throughput for HTTPS transactions varying the HTTPS
   response object size.

   Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
   as well as forward looking stronger keys.  Specific test iterations
   MUST include the ciphers and keys defined in the parameter
   Section 7.7.3.2.

7.7.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.

7.7.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.7.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.7.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target Throughput: Initial value from product datasheet (if known)

   Initial Throughput: 10% of "Target Throughput" (an optional parameter
   for documentation)

   Number of HTTPS response object requests (transactions) per
   connection: 10



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   RECOMMENDED ciphers and keys defined in Section 4.3.1.3

   RECOMMENDED HTTPS response object size: 1 KByte, 2 KByte, 4 KByte, 16
   KByte, 64 KByte, 256 KByte and mixed object defined in the table
   below.

   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
   |                     | Weight              |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 0.2                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 6                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 8                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 9                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 10                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 25                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 26                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 35                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 59                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 347                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+

                          Table 5: Mixed Objects

7.7.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.

   b.  Traffic should be forwarded constantly.

   c.  Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
       and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 41]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


       than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
       almost at the same rate

7.7.3.4.  Measurement

   The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   average Throughput and average HTTPS Transactions Per Second

7.7.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This test
   procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
   traffic distribution and HTTPS response object sizes.

7.7.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "initial throughput" as defined in the parameters Section 7.7.3.2.

   The traffic load profile should be defined as described in
   Section 4.3.4.  The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial Throughput"
   during the sustain phase.  Measure all KPI as defined in
   Section 7.7.3.4.

   The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the validation
   criteria "a" defined in Section 7.7.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.7.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.  Continue
   the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired "Target Throughput" at
   the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all
   validation criteria.

   Perform the test separately for each HTTPS response object size.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.



Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 42]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.7.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   validation criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
   test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.8.  HTTPS Transaction Latency

7.8.1.  Objective

   Using HTTPS traffic, determine the average HTTPS transaction latency
   when DUT is running with sustainable HTTPS transactions per second
   supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTPS response object size.

   Scenario 1: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS and close the connection
   with FIN immediately after completion of a single transaction (GET
   and RESPONSE).

   Scenario 2: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS and close the connection
   with FIN immediately after completion of 10 transactions (GET and
   RESPONSE) within a single TCP connection.

7.8.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.8.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.8.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.8.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 43]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   RECOMMENDED cipher suites and key sizes defined in Section 4.3.1.3

   Target objective for scenario 1: 50% of the maximum connections per
   second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTPS Connections per second
   (Section 7.6)

   Target objective for scenario 2: 50% of the maximum throughput
   measured in test scenario HTTPS Throughput (Section 7.7)

   Initial objective for scenario 1: 10% of Target objective for
   scenario 1" (an optional parameter for documentation)

   Initial objective for scenario 2: 10% of "Target objective for
   scenario 2" (an optional parameter for documentation)

   HTTPS transaction per TCP connection: test scenario 1 with single
   transaction and the second scenario with 10 transactions

   HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 KByte
   object.  For each test iteration, client MUST request a single HTTPS
   response object size.

7.8.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.  Ramp up and
   ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.

   Generic criteria:

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
       constant rate.

   d.  Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
       and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 44]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


       than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
       almost at the same rate

   e.  After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the "Target objective" defined
       in the parameter Section 7.8.3.2 and remain in that state for the
       entire test duration (sustain phase).

7.8.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
   HTTPS response object sizes separately:

   TTFB (minimum, average and maximum) and TTLB (minimum, average and
   maximum)

   All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
   achieves the steady state.

7.8.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure average TTFB or TTLB when
   the DUT is operating close to 50% of its maximum achievable
   connections per second.  This test procedure can be repeated multiple
   times with different IP types (IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6
   mixed traffic distribution), HTTPS response object sizes and single
   and multiple transactions per connection scenarios.

7.8.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "Initial objective" as defined in the parameters Section 7.8.3.2.
   The traffic load profile can be defined as described in
   Section 4.3.4.

   The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial objective" before the sustain
   phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the
   validation criteria a, b, c, d, e and f defined in Section 7.8.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".








Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 45]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.8.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target objective" defined in
   the parameters table.  The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic
   load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.

   During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
   concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
   MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support.
   The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be reported,
   if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
   maximum value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64 KByte of HTTP
   response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
   DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the result for 64
   KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.  Continue
   the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.  DUT/SUT is
   expected to reach the desired "Target objective" at the sustain
   phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all validation
   criteria.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.8.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
   validation criteria and measure the latency values.

7.9.  Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity

7.9.1.  Objective

   Determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connections that the
   DUT/SUT sustains when using HTTPS traffic.

7.9.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.








Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 46]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


7.9.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.9.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.9.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   documented for this test scenario:

      Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

      Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
      Section 4.3.1.2

      RECOMMENDED cipher suites and key sizes defined in Section 4.3.1.3

      Target concurrent connections: Initial value from product
      datasheet (if known)

      Initial concurrent connections: 10% of "Target concurrent
      connections" (an optional parameter for documentation)

      Connections per second during ramp up phase: 50% of maximum
      connections per second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTPS
      Connections per second (Section 7.6)

      Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Target concurrent
      connections"): "Target concurrent connections" / "Maximum
      connections per second during ramp up phase"

      Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Initial concurrent
      connections"): "Initial concurrent connections" / "Maximum
      connections per second during ramp up phase"

   The client MUST perform HTTPS transaction with persistence and each
   client can open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server
   endpoint IP.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 47]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Each client sends 10 GET commands requesting 1 KByte HTTPS response
   objects in the same TCP connections (10 transactions/TCP connection)
   and the delay (think time) between each transactions MUST be X
   seconds.

   X = ("Ramp up time" + "steady state time") /10

   The established connections SHOULD remain open until the ramp down
   phase of the test.  During the ramp down phase, all connections
   SHOULD be successfully closed with FIN.

7.9.3.3.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
       response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
       of 100,000 transactions) of total attempted transactions

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
       connections) of total initiated TCP connections

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic SHOULD be forwarded constantly

7.9.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metric MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   average Concurrent TCP Connections

7.9.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the concurrent TCP
   connection capacity of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of
   traffic load profile.  The test procedure consists of three major
   steps.  This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with
   different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution.

7.9.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.






Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 48]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Configure test equipment to establish "initial concurrent TCP
   connections" defined in Section 7.9.3.2.  Except ramp up time, the
   traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as described in Section 4.3.4.

   During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial
   concurrent TCP connections".  The measured KPIs during the sustain
   phase MUST meet the validation criteria "a" and "b" defined in
   Section 7.9.3.3.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

7.9.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
   connections".  The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load
   profile definition (except ramp up time) as described in
   Section 4.3.4.

   During the ramp up and sustain phase, the other KPIs such as
   throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
   per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
   support.

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
   Section 7.9.3.4.  The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.
   Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target concurrent
   connections at the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs
   MUST meet all validation criteria.

   Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
   criteria.

7.9.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
   connections within the validation criteria.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 49]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


9.  Security Considerations

   The primary goal of this document is to provide benchmarking
   terminology and methodology for next-generation network security
   devices.  However, readers should be aware that there is some overlap
   between performance and security issues.  Specifically, the optimal
   configuration for network security device performance may not be the
   most secure, and vice-versa.  The Cipher suites recommended in this
   document are just for test purpose only.  The Cipher suite
   recommendation for a real deployment is outside the scope of this
   document.

10.  Contributors

   The following individuals contributed significantly to the creation
   of this document:

   Alex Samonte, Amritam Putatunda, Aria Eslambolchizadeh, David
   DeSanto, Jurrie Van Den Breekel, Ryan Liles, Samaresh Nair, Stephen
   Goudreault, and Tim Otto

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to acknowledge the members of NetSecOPEN for their
   participation in the creation of this document.  Additionally the
   following members need to be acknowledged:

   Anand Vijayan, Baski Mohan, Chao Guo, Chris Brown, Chris Marshall,
   Jay Lindenauer, Michael Shannon, Mike Deichman, Ray Vinson, Ryan
   Riese, Tim Carlin, Tim Otto and Toulnay Orkun

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.








Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 50]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC2647]  Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
              Performance", RFC 2647, DOI 10.17487/RFC2647, August 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2647>.

   [RFC3511]  Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
              "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
              RFC 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3511>.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.

Appendix A.  Test Methodology - Security Effectiveness Evaluation

A.1.  Test Objective

   This test methodology verifies the DUT/SUT is able to detect, prevent
   and report the vulnerabilities.

   In this test, background test traffic will be generated in order to
   utilize the DUT/SUT.  In parallel, the CVEs will be sent to the DUT/
   SUT as encrypted and as well as clear text payload formats using a
   traffic generator.  The selection of the CVEs is described in
   Section 4.2.1.

   o  Number of blocked CVEs

   o  Number of bypassed (nonblocked) CVEs

   o  Background traffic performance (verify if the background traffic
      is impacted while sending CVE toward DUT/SUT)

   o  Accuracy of DUT/SUT statistics in term of vulnerabilities
      reporting








Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 51]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


A.2.  Testbed setup

   The same Testbed MUST be used for security effectiveness test and as
   well as for benchmarking test cases defined in Section 7.

A.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, the test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be
   defined.

A.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT configuration Parameters MUST conform to the requirements
   defined in Section 4.2.  The same DUT configuration MUST be used for
   Security effectiveness test and as well as for benchmarking test
   cases defined in Section 7.  The DUT/SUT MUST be configured in inline
   mode and all detected attack traffic MUST be dropped and the session
   Should be reset

A.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  The same Client and server IP
   ranges MUST be configured as used in the benchmarking test cases.  In
   addition, the following parameters MUST be documented for this test
   scenario:

   o  Background Traffic: 45% of maximum HTTP throughput and 45% of
      Maximum HTTPS throughput supported by the DUT/SUT (measured with
      object size 64 KByte in the test scenarios "HTTP(S) Throughput"
      defined in Section 7.3 and Section 7.7.

   o  RECOMMENDED CVE traffic transmission Rate: 10 CVEs per second

   o  RECOMMEND to generate each CVE multiple times (sequentially) at 10
      CVEs per second

   o  Ciphers and Keys for the encrypted CVE traffic MUST use the same
      cipher configured for HTTPS traffic related benchmarking test
      scenarios (Section 7.6 - Section 7.9)

A.4.  Test Results Validation Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
   criteria.  Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole test duration.





Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 52]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   a.  Number of failed Application transaction in the background
       traffic MUST be less than 0.01% of attempted transactions

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections of the background traffic
       (due to unexpected TCP RST sent by DUT/SUT) MUST be less than
       0.01% of total initiated TCP connections in the background
       traffic

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
       constant rate

   d.  False positive MUST NOT occur in the background traffic

A.5.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   Mandatory KPIs:

   o  Blocked CVEs: It should be represented in the following ways:

      *  Number of blocked CVEs out of total CVEs

      *  Percentage of blocked CVEs

   o  Unblocked CVEs: It should be represented in the following ways:

      *  Number of unblocked CVEs out of total CVEs

      *  Percentage of unblocked CVEs

   o  Background traffic behavior: it should represent one of the
      followings ways:

      *  No impact (traffic transmission at a constant rate)

      *  Minor impact (e.g. small spikes- +/- 100 Mbit/s)

      *  Heavily impacted (e.g. large spikes and reduced the background
         throughput > 100 Mbit/s)

   o  DUT/SUT reporting accuracy: DUT/SUT MUST report all detected
      vulnerabilities.

   Optional KPIs:

   o  List of unblocked CVEs




Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 53]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


A.6.  Test Procedures and expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the security effectiveness
   of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of the traffic load profile.
   The test procedure consists of two major steps.  This test procedure
   MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic
   distribution.

A.6.1.  Step 1: Background traffic

   Generate the background traffic at the transmission rate defined in
   the parameter section.

   The DUT/SUT MUST reach the target objective (throughput) in sustain
   phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the test
   validation criteria a, b, c and d defined in Appendix A.4.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance criteria, the test
   procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".

A.6.2.  Step 2: CVE emulation

   While generating the background traffic (in sustain phase), send the
   CVE traffic as defined in the parameter section.

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 2 seconds.
   Continue the test until all CVEs are sent.

   The measured KPIs MUST meet all test validation criteria a, b, c, and
   d defined in Appendix A.4.

   In addition, the DUT/SUT SHOULD report the vulnerabilities correctly.

Authors' Addresses

   Balamuhunthan Balarajah
   Berlin
   Germany

   Email: bm.balarajah@gmail.com










Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 54]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2020


   Carsten Rossenhoevel
   EANTC AG
   Salzufer 14
   Berlin  10587
   Germany

   Email: cross@eantc.de


   Brian Monkman
   NetSecOPEN
   417 Independence Court
   Mechanicsburg, PA  17050
   USA

   Email: bmonkman@netsecopen.org



































Balarajah, et al.          Expires May 3, 2021                 [Page 55]