Re: [bmwg] Several inconsistencies in current draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

[[e-mail]]

Petr,

 

Here's our response to each item..

 

Response for Comment 1: 

The confusion or inconsistency has occurred since we use SNI as mandatory
for a test scenario (traffic mix test) and as optional for other test
scenarios.

We will revise the text and provide more clarity in the next version.

 

  Response for Comment 2:   

The sentence doesn't describe that the client must keep the connections open
during the sustain phase. However, we can change the sentence as follows 

"Sustain phase starts when all required clients (connections) are active and
operating at their desired load condition."

This means that the clients/client endpoints are established their required
target connection (based on configured load). It is obvious that the clients
will close the connections once they received all contents from the server.
Also, the clients will establish new connections during the sustain phase.
Otherwise, there is no traffic in the sustain phase and the test equipment
can't keep the desired load.

 

  Response for Comment 3:  

The endpoints perform the same action. However, the IPs (SRC and DST) and
also ports (random source port from the range) are different. we can change
the text if more clarity required.

"Thus, a balanced mesh between client endpoints and server endpoints will be
generated in a client IP/port server IP/port combination.

 

Brian and Bala

 

From: bmwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 11:31 AM
To: Redkin Petr <Petr.Redkin=[e-mail]>rg>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Several inconsistencies in current
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

 

Hi Petr,

 

Thanks for your comments on the NGFW draft.  Please subscribe to bmwg-list
to ensure that you see all replies.

 

A few replies below, [acm]
Al

(as document shepherd)

 

From: bmwg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf
Of Redkin Petr
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 7:01 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [bmwg] Several inconsistencies in current
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

 

Hello,

 

Please, pay attention at several inconsistencies in current netsecopen draft
(saw in 6-7 versions).

1.	TLS SNI

a.	in part of the document SNI is mandatory

The client endpoint SHOULD send TLS Extension Server Name Indication (SNI)
information when opening a security tunnel

b.	in part of the document SNI is optional

For TLS the client MAY use Server Name Indication (SNI).

If using SNI, the server will then perform an SNI name check with the
proposed FQDN compared to the domain embedded in the certificate.

[acm] 

I want to note our Requirements language, which says that only terms like
MUST and SHALL indicate mandatory requirements.  SHOULD is a strong
recommendation, and MAY is optional of course, so there are two different
requirement levels being used as you point out. I'll let the authors explain
their rationale for different requirements levels for SNI (in different
tests, perhaps?).

 

2.	New connections in sustain phase

a.	From this sentence engineer may assume, that no new connections are
established in sustain phase because all clients & connections (it is
different concepts) must be established at a ramp up

Sustain phase starts when all required clients (connections) are active and
operating at their desired load condition.

b.	But it is not, otherwise we cannot measure CPS metric in sustain
phase, for example in traffic mix test

Optional KPIs: TCP Connections Per Second and TLS Handshake Rate

3.	Client source port

a.	In part of the document source port is variable in range and varies
per client connection

The source port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 - 65535. 

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 client port server port combination.

b.	But it is not clear from this sentence

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.

 

 

Best Regards, 

Petr Redkin

  

Performance research expert, 

JSC "InfoTeCS"