Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Sun, 21 October 2018 18:48 UTC
Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92AE130E90 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.399
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_SUMOF=5, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MiUa_ky3zgaK for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71ACC130E7E for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w9LIii6h003315 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:48:50 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2n8hvqnkx9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:48:50 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LImmG9033678 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:48:49 -0500
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [135.46.181.149]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LImlR7033661 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:48:47 -0500
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id D91504013B22 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:48:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 9061C40006FE for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:48:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LImlsA032481 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:48:47 -0500
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LImhtY032341 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:48:43 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DB1F1FC1 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:47:59 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
Thread-Index: AdRpbQmISVir3THXT3m9iQjUgXW92gAAMDMw
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:47:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF557A38CD@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.197.229.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-10-21_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1810210173
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/wkTqbRJ5eD5CjRgB_EOc8WqbCYA>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:48:55 -0000
BMWG, As a participant, I have the following comments on this draft. (Unfortunately, I started with version 04, but most of these comments are still relevant.) Al [acm] Comments through Section 5 10-2018 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-04 Abstract This document provides benchmarking terminology and methodology for next-generation network security devices including next-generation firewalls (NGFW), intrusion detection and prevention solutions (IDS/ IPS) and unified threat management (UTM) implementations. The document aims to strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility and transparency of benchmarks and to align the test methodology with today's increasingly complex layer 7 application use cases. The main areas covered in this document are test terminology, traffic profiles and benchmarking methodology for NGFWs to start with. [acm] suggest s/ 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 January 3, 2019. [acm] That's about 3 months too early... Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents ... 7.9. HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.9.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.10. HTTPS Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 [acm] Although it's premature to say so before reaching the section, one concern here will be repeatability across test devices. 7.10.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.10.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7.10.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7.10.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 44 7.11. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . 45 7.11.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Appendix A. NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 1. Introduction 15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and terminology for firewalls initially (RFC 2647, RFC 3511). 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: They enable fair and reasonable comparison of network security functions. All these [acm] I think we call these KPI's Benchmarks in BMWG. (but I'll keep reading) reasons have led to the creation of a new next-generation firewall benchmarking document. Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 2. Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] . [acm] There's a new reference in addition to 2119 (8174) and new suggested text for this section. 3. Scope This document provides testing terminology and testing methodology next-generation firewalls and related security functions. It covers two main areas: Performance benchmarks and security effectiveness testing. The document focuses on advanced, realistic, and reproducible testing methods. Additionally it describes test bed environments, test tool requirements and test result formats. 4. Test Setup Test setup defined in this document will be applicable to all of the benchmarking test scenarios described in Section 7. 4.1. Testbed Configuration Testbed configuration MUST ensure that any performance implications that are discovered during the benchmark testing aren't due to the inherent physical network limitations such as number of physical links and forwarding performance capabilities (throughput and latency) of the network devise in the testbed. For this reason, this [acm] s/devise/device/ document recommends to avoid external devices such as switch and router in the testbed as possible. [acm} make plural: switches and routers In the typical deployment, the security devices (DUT/SUT) will not have a large number of entries in MAC or ARP tables, which impact the actual DUT/SUT performance due to MAC and ARP/ND table lookup processes. Therefore, depend on number of used IP address in client {acm] s/depend/depending/ and server side, it is recommended to connect Layer 3 device(s) [acm] indicate Client and Server in the Figures [acm] s/recommend/RECOMMEND/ ?? use requirements terms where appropriate! between test equipment and DUT/SUT as shown in Figure 1. If the test equipment is capable to emulate layer 3 routing [acm] s/to emulate/of emulating/ functionality and there is no need for test equipment ports aggregation, it is recommended to configure the test setup as shown in Figure 2. [acm] What device's ports are being aggregated? DUT/SUT or Test Equipment? Show the additional ports/physical connections in the Figure... Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 +-------------------+ +-----------+ +--------------------+ |Aggregation Switch/| | | | Aggregation Switch/| | Router +------+ DUT/SUT +------+ Router | | | | | | | +----------+--------+ +-----------+ +--------+-----------+ | | | | +-----------+-----------+ +-----------+-----------+ | | | | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | | | Emulated Router(s)| | | | Emulated Router(s)| | | | (Optional) | | | | (Optional) | | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | | | Clients | | | | Servers | | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | | | | | | Test Equipment | | Test Equipment | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ Figure 1: Testbed Setup - Option 1 +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | +-------------------+ | +-----------+ | +-------------------+ | | | Emulated Router(s)| | | | | | Emulated Router(s)| | | | (Optional) | +----- DUT/SUT +-----+ (Optional) | | | +-------------------+ | | | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | +-----------+ | +-------------------+ | | | Clients | | | | Servers | | | +-------------------+ | | +-------------------+ | | | | | | Test Equipment | | Test Equipment | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ Figure 2: Testbed Setup - Option 2 4.2. DUT/SUT Configuration An unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all of the 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 that would be used in the actual deployment of the device or a typical deployment. Also it is mandatory to enable security features on the DUT/SUT in order to achieve maximum security coverage for a specific deployment scenario. This document attempts to define the recommended security features which SHOULD be consistently enabled for all of the benchmarking Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 tests described in Section 7. The table below describes the recommended sets of feature list which SHOULD be configured on the [acm] s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/ ?? DUT/SUT. In order to improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT configuration including description of all enabled DUT/SUT features MUST be published with the benchmarking results. +----------------------------------------------------+ | Device | +---------------------------------+---+---+---+------+ | | | | | | SSL | | NGFW |NGIPS|ADC|WAF|BPS|Broker| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | |Included |Added to| Future test standards | |DUT Features |Feature|in initial|future | to be developed | | | |Scope |Scope | | +------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+------+ |SSL Inspection| x | | x | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |IDS/IPS | x | x | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Web Filtering | x | | x | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Antivirus | x | x | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Anti Spyware | x | x | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Anti Botnet | x | x | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |DLP | x | | x | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |DDoS | x | | x | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Certificate | x | | x | | | | | | |Validation | | | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Logging and | x | x | | | | | | | |Reporting | | | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Application | x | x | | | | | | | |Identification| | | | | | | | | +----------------------+----------+--------+-----+---+---+---+------+ Table 1: DUT/SUT Feature List In addition, it is also recommended to configure a realistic number of access policy rules on the DUT/SUT. This document determines the number of access policy rules for three different class of DUT/SUT. The classification of the DUT/SUT MAY be based on its maximum Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 supported throughput performance number defined in the vendor data sheet. This document classifies the DUT/SUT in three different categories; namely small, medium and maximum. The recommended throughput values for the following classes are; Small - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s Medium - supported throughput greater than 5Gbit/s and less than 10Gbit/s Large - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s [acm] This is somewhat unchartered territory for BMWG. Previously we have let the capacity-related benchmarks speak for themselves w.r.t. size. Also, size doesn't appear to influence the features, just the number of access policy rules configured for testing. Maybe the solution is to categorize three sets of policy rules as small, medium and large. Then each test designer can select the appropriate size set(s), rather than assign the DUT/SUT to a category... So, in Table 2, s/DUT\/SUT/Category of/ The access rule defined in the table 2 MUST be configured from top to bottom in correct order shown in the table. The configured access policy rule MUST NOT block the test traffic used for the benchmarking test scenarios. Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 +------------------------------------------------+------------------+ | | DUT/SUT | | | Classification | | | # Rules | +-----------+-----------+-----------------+------------+------+-----+ | | Match | | | | | | | Rules Type| Criteria| Description |Action|Small|Medium|Large| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Application|Application|Any application |block | 10 | 20 | 50 | |layer | |traffic NOT | | | | | | | |included in the | | | | | | | |test traffic | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Transport |Src IP and |Any src IP use in|block | 50 | 100 | 250 | |layer |TCP/UDP |the test AND any | | | | | | |Dst ports |dst ports NOT | | | | | | | |used in the test | | | | | | | |traffic | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |IP layer |Src/Dst IP |Any src/dst IP |block | 50 | 100 | 250 | | | |NOT used in the | | | | | | | |test | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Application|Application|Applications |allow | 10 | 10 | 10 | |layer | |included in the | | | | | | | |test traffic | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Transport |Src IP and |Half of the src |allow | 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 | | | |src IP subnet | | | | | | | |range used in the| | | | | | | |test. One rule | | | | | | | |per subnet | | | | | +-----------+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+-----+ Table 2: DUT/SUT Access List 4.3. Test Equipment Configuration In general, test equipment allows configuring parameters in different protocol level. These parameters thereby influencing the traffic flows which will be offered and impacting performance measurements. Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 This document attempts to explicitly specify which test equipment parameters SHOULD be configurable, any such parameter(s) MUST be noted in the test report. 4.3.1. Client Configuration This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considerable while [acm] s/considerable/configurable/ [acm] *** I'm going to stop adding Grammar and word-choice comments at this point. *** There are many tools that can help you! configuring emulated clients using test equipment. Also this section specifies the recommended values for certain parameters. 4.3.1.1. TCP Stack Attributes The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on every TCP connection between client and server endpoints. The default IPv4 and IPv6 MSS segments size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and 1440 bytes and a TX and RX receive windows of 32768 bytes. Delayed [acm] 32k max recv window seems too low, maybe you also assume very low RTT? [acm] Initial Window size for Slow-start is a critical parameter. ACKs are permitted, but it SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec delay timeout or 3000 in bytes before a forced ACK. Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is declared. All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high. The source port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 - 65535. Internal timeout SHOULD be dynamically scalable per RFC 793. 4.3.1.2. Client IP Address Space The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following attributes. The traffic blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique, continuous static address blocks. A default gateway is permitted. The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'. The following equation can be used to determine the required total number of client IP address. Desired total number of client IP = Target throughput [Mbit/s] / Throughput per IP address [Mbit/s] [acm] Question: are the "Ideas" below actually different client scenarios that you would want to test? Or, is the WG supposed to discuss these ideas and choose one? (Idea 1) 6-7 Mbps per IP (e.g 1,400-1,700 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput) (Idea 2) 0.1-0.2 Mbps per IP (e.g 50,000-100,000 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput) Based on deployment and usecase scenario, client IP addresses SHOULD be distributed between IPv4 and IPv6 type. This document recommends using the following ratio(s) between IPv4 and IPv6: [acm] from the description above, these seem like different Address Family scenarios (not Ideas). (Idea 1) 100 % IPv4, no IPv6 Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 (Idea 2) 80 % IPv4, 20 % IPv6 (Idea 3) 50 % IPv4, 50 % IPv6 (Idea 4) 0 % IPv4, 100 % IPv6 4.3.1.3. Emulated Web Browser Attributes The emulated web browser contains attributes that will materially affect how traffic is loaded. The objective is to emulate a modern, typical browser attributes to improve realism of the result set. For HTTP traffic emulation, the emulated browser must negotiate HTTP 1.1. HTTP persistency MAY be enabled depend on test scenario. The browser CAN 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 can be processed if the emulated browser has available connections. The browser MUST advertise a User-Agent header. Headers will be sent uncompressed. The browser should enforce content length validation. For encrypted traffic, the following attributes shall define the negotiated encryption parameters. The tests MUST use TLSv1.2 or higher with a record size of 16383, commonly used cipher suite and key strength. Session reuse or ticket resumption may be used for subsequent connections to the same Server endpoint IP. The client endpoint must send TLS Extension SNI information when opening up a security tunnel. Server certificate validation should be disabled. Server certificate validation should be disabled. Cipher suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session of benchmarking tests. 4.3.2. Backend Server Configuration This document attempts to specify which parameters should be considerable while configuring emulated backend servers using test equipment. 4.3.2.1. TCP Stack Attributes [acm] Is this the same as Client? I suggest to highlight the differences between Client and Server configs - maybe organize the sections to minimize repeated text with differences between C-S at the end of a section. The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on every TCP connection between client and server endpoints. The default IPv4 MSS segment size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and a TX and RX receive windows of at least 32768 bytes. Delayed ACKs are permitted but SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec delay timeout or 3000 in bytes before a forced ACK. Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is declared. All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 flag to high. The source port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 - 65535. Internal timeout should be dynamically scalable per RFC 793. 4.3.2.2. Server Endpoint IP Addressing The server IP blocks should consist of unique, continuous static address blocks with one IP per Server FQDN endpoint per test port. The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'. The source mac address of the server endpoints shall be the same emulating routed behavior. Each Server FQDN should have it's own unique IP address. The Server IP addressing should be fixed to the same number of FQDN entries. 4.3.2.3. HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes The emulated server pool for HTTP should listen on TCP port 80 and emulated HTTP version 1.1 with persistence. For HTTPS server, the pool must have the same basic attributes of an HTTP server pool plus attributes for SSL/TLS. The server must advertise a server type. For HTTPS server, TLS 1.2 or higher must be used with a record size of 16383 bytes and ticket resumption or Session ID reuse enabled. The server must listen on port TCP 443. The server shall serve a certificate to the client. It is required that the HTTPS server also check Host SNI information with the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). Client certificate validation should be disabled. Cipher suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session of benchmarking tests. 4.3.3. Traffic Flow Definition The section describes the traffic pattern between the client and server endpoints. At the beginning of the test, the server endpoint initializes and will be in a ready to accept connection state including initialization of the TCP stack as well as bound HTTP and HTTPS servers. When a client endpoint is needed, it will initialize and be given attributes such as the MAC and IP address. The behavior of the client is to sweep though the given server IP space, sequentially generating a recognizable service by the DUT. Thus, a balanced, mesh between client endpoints and server endpoints will be generated in a client port server port combination. Each client endpoint performs the same actions as other endpoints, with the difference being the source IP of the client endpoint and the target server IP pool. The client shall use Fully Qualified Domain Names in Host Headers and for TLS 1.2 Server Name Indication (SNI). Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 4.3.3.1. Description of Intra-Client Behavior Client endpoints are independent of other clients that are concurrently executing. When a client endpoint initiate traffic, this section will describe how the steps though different services. [acm] something is missing in the sentence above Once initialized, the user should randomly hold (perform no [acm] simulated user? or, the test automation? [acm] a definitions section will help to sort-out terminology. operation) for a few milliseconds to allow for better randomization of start of client traffic. The client will then either open up 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 1.2 encryption tunnel will form presenting the URL request to the server. The server will then perform an SNI name check with the proposed FQDN compared to the domain embedded in the certificate. Only when correct, will the server process the object. The initial object to the server may not have a fixed size; its size is based on benchmarking tests described in Section 7. Multiple additional sub-URLs (Objects on the service page) may be requested simultaneously. This may or may not be to the same server IP as the initial URL. Each sub-object will also use a conical FQDN and URL path, as observed in the traffic mix used. 4.3.4. Traffic Load Profile The loading of traffic will be described in this section. The loading of an traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init, ramp up, sustain, ramp down/close, and collection. [acm] Suggest to help the reader: these phases should be a numbered list. Also, it appears that each TRIAL has these 5 phases (Trial has specific meaning in BMWG RFCs.) Finally, this topic of phases seems to go beyond configuration, to procedure. It may be better as a separate section. Within the Init phase, test bed devices including the client and server endpoints should negotiate layer 2-3 connectivity such as MAC learning and ARP. Only after successful MAC learning or ARP/ND resolution shall the test iteration move to the next phase. No measurements are made in this phase. The minimum recommended time for init phase is 5 seconds. During this phase the emulated clients SHOULD NOT initiate any sessions with the DUT/SUT, in contrast, the emulated servers should be ready to accept requests from DUT/SUT or from emulated clients. In the ramp up phase, the test equipment should start to generate the test traffic. It should use a set approximate number of unique client IP addresses actively to generate traffic. The traffic should ramp from zero to desired target objective. The target objective will be defined for each benchmarking test. The duration for the ramp up phase must be configured long enough, so that the test equipment do not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported performance metrics namely; connection setup rate, concurrent connection and application transaction. The recommended time duration for the ramp up phase is 180- 300 seconds. No measurements are made in this phase. Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance July 2018 In the sustain phase, the test equipment should keep to generate traffic t constant target value for a constant number of active client IPs. The recommended time duration for sustain phase is 600 seconds. This is the phase where measurements occur. In the ramp down/close phase, no new connection is established and no measurements are made. The recommend duration of this phase is between 180 to 300 seconds. The last phase is administrative and will be when the tester merges and collates the report data. 5. Test Bed Considerations > -----Original Message----- > From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 2:39 PM > To: bmwg@ietf.org > Subject: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance > > BMWG, > > At our three meetings so far this year, the BMWG reviewed a version of > the Internet Draft on > > Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05 > > The BMWG has already adopted a milestone on our charter: > > Aug 2018 Methodology for Next-Gen Firewall Benchmarking to IESG Review > (in retrospect, this milestone was quite aspirational!) > > This message, therefore, starts a call for adoption on: > > Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05 > > to run until Friday, November 9, 2018. > > Please reply to bmwg@ietf.org indicating: > > (1) whether you support the adoption of the draft > as the basis document for the existing milestone > > (2) whether you commit to reviewing the WG document if adopted > > > thanks for your consideration of the draft, and regards, > > Al > bmwg co-chair
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ng… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… Brian Monkman
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… Brian Monkman
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… Timothy Winters
- [bmwg] FW: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmw… Carsten Rossenhoevel