3511
INFORMATIONAL
Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance (Obsoleted)
Authors: B. Hickman, D. Newman, S. Tadjudin, T. Martin
Date: April 2003
Area: ops
Working Group: bmwg
Stream: IETF
Obsoleted by:
RFC 9411
Abstract
This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be used to describe the performance characteristics of firewalls. In addition to defining the tests, this document also describes specific formats for reporting the results of the tests. This document is a product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3511
Obsoleted by: 9411 INFORMATIONAL
Network Working Group B. Hickman
Request for Comments: 3511 Spirent Communications
Category: Informational D. Newman
Network Test
S. Tadjudin
Spirent Communications
T. Martin
GVNW Consulting Inc
April 2003
<span class="h1">Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance</span>
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be
used to describe the performance characteristics of firewalls. In
addition to defining the tests, this document also describes specific
formats for reporting the results of the tests.
This document is a product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working
Group (BMWG) of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a> Test Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a> Virtual Client/Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a> Test Traffic Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a> DUT/SUT Traffic Flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a> Multiple Client/Server Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a> Network Address Translation (NAT). . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.7">4.7</a> Rule Sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.8">4.8</a> Web Caching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.9">4.9</a> Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 1]</span><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<a href="#section-4.10">4.10</a> TCP Stack Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a> IP throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a> Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a> Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate. . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a> Maximum TCP Connection Tear Down Rate. . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-5.5">5.5</a> Denial Of Service Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-5.6">5.6</a> HTTP Transfer Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#section-5.7">5.7</a> Maximum HTTP Transaction Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-5.8">5.8</a> Illegal Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
<a href="#section-5.9">5.9</a> IP Fragmentation Handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-24">24</a>
<a href="#section-5.10">5.10</a> Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-26">26</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-29">29</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a> Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-29">29</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a> Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-30">30</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-30">30</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> - HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-31">31</a>
<a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a> - Connection Establishment Time Measurements . . . . <a href="#page-31">31</a>
<a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a> - Connection Tear Down Time Measurements . . . . . . <a href="#page-32">32</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-33">33</a>
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-34">34</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
This document provides methodologies for the performance benchmarking
of firewalls. It covers four areas: forwarding, connection, latency
and filtering. In addition to defining tests, this document also
describes specific formats for reporting test results.
A previous document, "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
Performance" [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>], defines many of the terms that are used in this
document. The terminology document SHOULD be consulted before
attempting to make use of this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Requirements</span>
In this document, the words that are used to define the significance
of each particular requirement are capitalized. These words are:
* "MUST" This word, or the words "REQUIRED" and "SHALL" mean that
the item is an absolute requirement of the specification.
* "SHOULD" This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this
item, but the full implications should be understood and the case
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 2]</span><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
* "MAY" This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item
is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item
because a particular marketplace requires it or because it
enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the
same item.
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
of the MUST requirements. An implementation that satisfies all the
MUST and all the SHOULD requirements is said to be "unconditionally
compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all
the SHOULD requirements is said to be "conditionally compliant".
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Scope</span>
Firewalls can control access between networks. Usually, a firewall
protects a private network from public or shared network(s) to which
it is connected. A firewall can be as simple as a single device that
filters packets or as complex as a group of devices that combine
packet filtering and application-level proxy and network translation
services. This document focuses on benchmarking firewall
performance, wherever possible, independent of implementation.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Test Setup</span>
Test configurations defined in this document will be confined to
dual-homed and tri-homed as shown in figure 1 and figure 2
respectively.
Firewalls employing dual-homed configurations connect two networks.
One interface of the firewall is attached to the unprotected network
[<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>], typically the public network (Internet). The other interface is
connected to the protected network [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>], typically the internal LAN.
In the case of dual-homed configurations, servers which are made
accessible to the public (Unprotected) network are attached to the
private (Protected) network.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 3]</span><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
+----------+ +----------+
| | | +----------+ | | |
| Servers/ |----| | | |------| Servers/ |
| Clients | | | | | | Clients |
| | |-------| DUT/SUT |--------| | |
+----------+ | | | | +----------+
Protected | +----------+ | Unprotected
Network | | Network
Figure 1 (Dual-Homed)
Tri-homed [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>] configurations employ a third segment called a
Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). With tri-homed configurations, servers
accessible to the public network are attached to the DMZ. Tri-Homed
configurations offer additional security by separating server(s)
accessible to the public network from internal hosts.
+----------+ +----------+
| | | +----------+ | | |
| Clients |----| | | |------| Servers/ |
| | | | | | | Clients |
+----------+ |-------| DUT/SUT |--------| | |
| | | | +----------+
| +----------+ |
Protected | | | Unprotected
Network | Network
|
-----------------
| DMZ
|
|
+-----------+
| |
| Servers |
| |
+-----------+
Figure 2 (Tri-Homed)
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a> Test Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a> Virtual Clients/Servers</span>
Since firewall testing may involve data sources which emulate
multiple users or hosts, the methodology uses the terms virtual
clients/servers. For these firewall tests, virtual clients/servers
specify application layer entities which may not be associated with a
unique physical interface. For example, four virtual clients may
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 4]</span><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
originate from the same data source [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>]. The test report MUST
indicate the number of virtual clients and virtual servers
participating in the test.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a> Test Traffic Requirements</span>
While the function of a firewall is to enforce access control
policies, the criteria by which those policies are defined vary
depending on the implementation. Firewalls may use network layer,
transport layer or, in many cases, application-layer criteria to make
access-control decisions.
For the purposes of benchmarking firewall performance, this document
references HTTP 1.1 or higher as the application layer entity. The
methodologies MAY be used as a template for benchmarking with other
applications. Since testing may involve proxy based DUT/SUTs, HTTP
version considerations are discussed in <a href="#appendix-A">appendix A</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a> DUT/SUT Traffic Flows</span>
Since the number of interfaces are not fixed, the traffic flows will
be dependent upon the configuration used in benchmarking the DUT/SUT.
Note that the term "traffic flows" is associated with client-to-
server requests.
For Dual-Homed configurations, there are two unique traffic flows:
Client Server
------ ------
Protected -> Unprotected
Unprotected -> Protected
For Tri-Homed configurations, there are three unique traffic flows:
Client Server
------ ------
Protected -> Unprotected
Protected -> DMZ
Unprotected -> DMZ
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a> Multiple Client/Server Testing</span>
One or more clients may target multiple servers for a given
application. Each virtual client MUST initiate connections in a
round-robin fashion. For example, if the test consisted of six
virtual clients targeting three servers, the pattern would be as
follows:
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 5]</span><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Client Target Server (In order of request)
#1 1 2 3 1...
#2 2 3 1 2...
#3 3 1 2 3...
#4 1 2 3 1...
#5 2 3 1 2...
#6 3 1 2 3...
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a> Network Address Translation (NAT)</span>
Many firewalls implement network address translation (NAT) [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>], a
function which translates private internet addresses to public
internet addresses. This involves additional processing on the part
of the DUT/SUT and may impact performance. Therefore, tests SHOULD
be ran with NAT disabled and NAT enabled to determine the performance
differential, if any. The test report MUST indicate whether NAT was
enabled or disabled.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7" href="#section-4.7">4.7</a> Rule Sets</span>
Rule sets [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>] are a collection of access control policies that
determine which packets the DUT/SUT will forward and which it will
reject [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>]. Since criteria by which these access control policies
may be defined will vary depending on the capabilities of the
DUT/SUT, the following is limited to providing guidelines for
configuring rule sets when benchmarking the performance of the
DUT/SUT.
It is RECOMMENDED that a rule be entered for each host (Virtual
client). In addition, testing SHOULD be performed using different
size rule sets to determine its impact on the performance of the
DUT/SUT. Rule sets MUST be configured in a manner, such that, rules
associated with actual test traffic are configured at the end of the
rule set and not at the beginning.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured to deny access to all traffic which
was not previously defined in the rule set. The test report SHOULD
include the DUT/SUT configured rule set(s).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.8" href="#section-4.8">4.8</a> Web Caching</span>
Some firewalls include caching agents to reduce network load. When
making a request through a caching agent, the caching agent attempts
to service the response from its internal memory. The cache itself
saves responses it receives, such as responses for HTTP GET requests.
Testing SHOULD be performed with any caching agents on the DUT/SUT
disabled.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 6]</span><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.9" href="#section-4.9">4.9</a> Authentication</span>
Access control may involve authentication processes such as user,
client or session authentication. Authentication is usually
performed by devices external to the firewall itself, such as an
authentication server(s) and may add to the latency of the system.
Any authentication processes MUST be included as part of connection
setup process.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.10" href="#section-4.10">4.10</a> TCP Stack Considerations</span>
Some test instruments allow configuration of one or more TCP stack
parameters, thereby influencing the traffic flows which will be
offered and impacting performance measurements. While this document
does not attempt to specify which TCP parameters should be
configurable, any such TCP parameter(s) MUST be noted in the test
report. In addition, when comparing multiple DUT/SUTs, the same TCP
parameters MUST be used.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Benchmarking Tests</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a> IP Throughput</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.1" href="#section-5.1.1">5.1.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the throughput of network-layer data traversing the
DUT/SUT, as defined in <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a> [<a href="#ref-3" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices"">3</a>]. Note that while <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a> uses
the term frames, which is associated with the link layer, the
procedure uses the term packets, since it is referencing the network
layer.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.2" href="#section-5.1.2">5.1.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
The following parameters MUST be defined:
Packet size - Number of bytes in the IP packet, exclusive of any
link layer header or checksums.
Test Duration - Duration of the test, expressed in seconds.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.3" href="#section-5.1.3">5.1.3</a> Procedure</span>
The test instrument MUST offer unicast IP packets to the DUT/SUT at a
constant rate. The test MAY consist of either bi-directional or
unidirectional traffic; for example, an emulated client may offer a
unicast stream of packets to an emulated server, or the test
instrument may simulate a client/server exchange by offering
bidirectional traffic.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 7]</span><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
This test will employ an iterative search algorithm. Each iteration
will involve the test instrument varying the intended load until the
maximum rate, at which no packet loss occurs, is found. Since
backpressure mechanisms may be employed, resulting in the intended
load and offered load being different, the test SHOULD be performed
in either a packet based or time based manner as described in <a href="./rfc2889">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2889">2889</a> [<a href="#ref-5" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices"">5</a>]. As with <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>, the term packet is used in place of
frame. The duration of the test portion of each trial MUST be at
least 30 seconds.
It is RECOMMENDED to perform the throughput measurements with
different packet sizes. When testing with different packet sizes the
DUT/SUT configuration MUST remain the same.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.4" href="#section-5.1.4">5.1.4</a> Measurement</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.4.1" href="#section-5.1.4.1">5.1.4.1</a> Network Layer</span>
Throughput:
Maximum offered load, expressed in either bits per second or
packets per second, at which no packet loss is detected. The bits
to be counted are in the IP packet (header plus payload); other
fields, such as link-layer headers and trailers, MUST NOT be
included in the measurement.
Forwarding Rate:
Forwarding rate, expressed in either bits per second or packets
per second, the device is observed to successfully forward to the
correct destination interface in response to a specified offered
load. The bits to be counted are in the IP packet (header plus
payload); other fields, such as link-layer headers and trailers,
MUST NOT be included in the measurement.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.5" href="#section-5.1.5">5.1.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test report MUST note the packet size(s), test duration,
throughput and forwarding rate. In addition, the test report MUST
conform to the reporting requirements set in <a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
If the test involved offering packets which target more than one
segment (Protected, Unprotected or DMZ), the report MUST identify the
results as an aggregate throughput measurement.
The throughput results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table
with a row for each of the tested packet sizes. There SHOULD be
columns for the packet size, the intended load, the offered load,
resultant throughput and forwarding rate for each test.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 8]</span><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be saved in log
file which includes the packet size, test duration and for each
iteration:
- Step Iteration
- Pass/Fail Status
- Total packets offered
- Total packets forwarded
- Intended load
- Offered load (If applicable)
- Forwarding rate
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a> Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.1" href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connections
supported through or with the DUT/SUT, as defined in <a href="./rfc2647">RFC 2647</a> [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>].
This test is intended to find the maximum number of entries the
DUT/SUT can store in its connection table.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.2" href="#section-5.2.2">5.2.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
The following parameters MUST be defined for all tests:
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.2.1" href="#section-5.2.2.1">5.2.2.1</a> Transport-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Connection Attempt Rate:
The aggregate rate, expressed in connections per second, at which
TCP connection requests are attempted. The rate SHOULD be set at
or lower than the maximum rate at which the DUT/SUT can accept
connection requests.
Aging Time:
The time, expressed in seconds, the DUT/SUT will keep a connection
in its connection table after receiving a TCP FIN or RST packet.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.2.2" href="#section-5.2.2.2">5.2.2.2</a> Application-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Validation Method:
HTTP 1.1 or higher MUST be used for this test for both clients and
servers. The client and server MUST use the same HTTP version.
Object Size:
Defines the number of bytes, excluding any bytes associated with
the HTTP header, to be transferred in response to an HTTP 1.1 or
higher GET request.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 9]</span><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.3" href="#section-5.2.3">5.2.3</a> Procedure</span>
This test will employ an iterative search algorithm to determine the
maximum number of concurrent TCP connections supported through or
with the DUT/SUT.
For each iteration, the aggregate number of concurrent TCP
connections attempted by the virtual client(s) will be varied. The
destination address will be that of the server or that of the NAT
proxy. The aggregate rate will be defined by connection attempt
rate, and will be attempted in a round-robin fashion (See 4.5).
To validate all connections, the virtual client(s) MUST request an
object using an HTTP 1.1 or higher GET request. The requests MUST be
initiated on each connection after all of the TCP connections have
been established.
When testing proxy-based DUT/SUTs, the virtual client(s) MUST request
two objects using HTTP 1.1 or higher GET requests. The first GET
request is required for connection time establishment [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>]
measurements as specified in <a href="#appendix-B">appendix B</a>. The second request is used
for validation as previously mentioned. When comparing proxy and
non-proxy based DUT/SUTs, the test MUST be performed in the same
manner.
Between each iteration, it is RECOMMENDED that the test instrument
issue a TCP RST referencing each connection attempted for the
previous iteration, regardless of whether or not the connection
attempt was successful. The test instrument will wait for aging time
before continuing to the next iteration.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.4" href="#section-5.2.4">5.2.4</a> Measurements</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.4.1" href="#section-5.2.4.1">5.2.4.1</a> Application-Layer measurements</span>
Number of objects requested
Number of objects returned
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.4.2" href="#section-5.2.4.2">5.2.4.2</a> Transport-Layer measurements</span>
Maximum concurrent connections:
Total number of TCP connections open for the last successful
iteration performed in the search algorithm.
Minimum connection establishment time:
Lowest TCP connection establishment time measured, as defined in
<a href="#appendix-B">appendix B</a>.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 10]</span><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Maximum connection establishment time:
Highest TCP connection establishment time measured, as defined in
<a href="#appendix-B">appendix B</a>.
Average connection establishment time:
The mean of all measurements of connection establishment times.
Aggregate connection establishment time:
The total of all measurements of connection establishment times.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.5" href="#section-5.2.5">5.2.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test report MUST conform to the reporting requirements set in
<a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.5.1" href="#section-5.2.5.1">5.2.5.1</a> Application-Layer Reporting:</span>
The test report MUST note the object size, number of completed
requests and number of completed responses.
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in a
tabular format with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD be
rows for the number of requests attempted, number and percentage
requests completed, number of responses attempted, number and
percentage of responses completed. The table MAY be combined with
the transport-layer reporting, provided that the table identify this
as an application layer measurement.
Version information:
The test report MUST note the version of HTTP client(s) and
server(s).
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.5.2" href="#section-5.2.5.2">5.2.5.2</a> Transport-Layer Reporting:</span>
The test report MUST note the connection attempt rate, aging time,
minimum TCP connection establishment time, maximum TCP connection
establishment time, average connection establishment time, aggregate
connection establishment time and maximum concurrent connections
measured.
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in
the format of a table with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD
be rows for the total number of TCP connections attempted, number and
percentage of TCP connections completed, minimum TCP connection
establishment time, maximum TCP connection establishment time,
average connection establishment time and the aggregate connection
establishment time.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 11]</span><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a> Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.1" href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the maximum TCP connection establishment rate through or
with the DUT/SUT, as defined by <a href="./rfc2647">RFC 2647</a> [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>]. This test is intended
to find the maximum rate the DUT/SUT can update its connection table.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.2" href="#section-5.3.2">5.3.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
The following parameters MUST be defined for all tests:
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.2.1" href="#section-5.3.2.1">5.3.2.1</a> Transport-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Number of Connections:
Defines the aggregate number of TCP connections that must be
established.
Aging Time:
The time, expressed in seconds, the DUT/SUT will keep a connection
in it's state table after receiving a TCP FIN or RST packet.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.2.2" href="#section-5.3.2.2">5.3.2.2</a> Application-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Validation Method:
HTTP 1.1 or higher MUST be used for this test for both clients and
servers. The client and server MUST use the same HTTP version.
Object Size:
Defines the number of bytes, excluding any bytes associated with
the HTTP header, to be transferred in response to an HTTP 1.1 or
higher GET request.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.3" href="#section-5.3.3">5.3.3</a> Procedure</span>
This test will employ an iterative search algorithm to determine the
maximum rate at which the DUT/SUT can accept TCP connection requests.
For each iteration, the aggregate rate at which TCP connection
requests are attempted by the virtual client(s) will be varied. The
destination address will be that of the server or that of the NAT
proxy. The aggregate number of connections, defined by number of
connections, will be attempted in a round-robin fashion (See 4.5).
The same application-layer object transfers required for validation
and establishment time measurements as described in the concurrent
TCP connection capacity test MUST be performed.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 12]</span><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Between each iteration, it is RECOMMENDED that the test instrument
issue a TCP RST referencing each connection attempted for the
previous iteration, regardless of whether or not the connection
attempt was successful. The test instrument will wait for aging time
before continuing to the next iteration.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.4" href="#section-5.3.4">5.3.4</a> Measurements</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.4.1" href="#section-5.3.4.1">5.3.4.1</a> Application-Layer measurements</span>
Number of objects requested
Number of objects returned
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.4.2" href="#section-5.3.4.2">5.3.4.2</a> Transport-Layer measurements</span>
Highest connection rate:
Highest rate, in connections per second, for which all connections
successfully opened in the search algorithm.
Minimum connection establishment time:
Lowest TCP connection establishment time measured, as defined in
<a href="#appendix-B">appendix B</a>.
Maximum connection establishment time:
Highest TCP connection establishment time measured, as defined in
<a href="#appendix-B">appendix B</a>.
Average connection establishment time:
The mean of all measurements of connection establishment times.
Aggregate connection establishment time:
The total of all measurements of connection establishment times.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.5" href="#section-5.3.5">5.3.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test report MUST conform to the reporting requirements set in
<a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.5.1" href="#section-5.3.5.1">5.3.5.1</a> Application-Layer Reporting:</span>
The test report MUST note object size(s), number of completed
requests and number of completed responses.
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in a
tabular format with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD be
rows for the number of requests attempted, number and percentage
requests completed, number of responses attempted, number and
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 13]</span><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
percentage of responses completed. The table MAY be combined with
the transport-layer reporting, provided that the table identify this
as an application layer measurement.
Version information:
The test report MUST note the version of HTTP client(s) and
server(s).
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.5.2" href="#section-5.3.5.2">5.3.5.2</a> Transport-Layer Reporting:</span>
The test report MUST note the number of connections, aging time,
minimum TCP connection establishment time, maximum TCP connection
establishment time, average connection establishment time, aggregate
connection establishment time and highest connection rate measured.
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in
the format of a table with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD
be rows for the connection attempt rate, total number of TCP
connections attempted, total number of TCP connections completed,
minimum TCP connection establishment time, maximum TCP connection
establishment time, average connection establishment time and the
aggregate connection establishment time.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a> Maximum TCP Connection Tear Down Rate</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.1" href="#section-5.4.1">5.4.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the maximum TCP connection tear down rate through or
with the DUT/SUT, as defined by <a href="./rfc2647">RFC 2647</a> [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>].
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.2" href="#section-5.4.2">5.4.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
Number of Connections:
Defines the number of TCP connections that will be attempted to be
torn down.
Aging Time:
The time, expressed in seconds, the DUT/SUT will keep a connection
in it's state table after receiving a TCP FIN or RST packet.
Close Method:
Defines method for closing TCP connections. The test MUST be
performed with either a three-way or four-way handshake. In a
four-way handshake, each side sends separate FIN and ACK messages.
In a three-way handshake, one side sends a combined FIN/ACK
message upon receipt of a FIN.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 14]</span><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Close Direction:
Defines whether closing of connections are to be initiated from
the client or from the server.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.3" href="#section-5.4.3">5.4.3</a> Procedure</span>
This test will employ an iterative search algorithm to determine the
maximum TCP connection tear down rate supported by the DUT/SUT. The
test iterates through different TCP connection tear down rates with a
fixed number of TCP connections.
In the case of proxy based DUT/SUTs, the DUT/SUT will itself receive
the ACK in response to issuing a FIN packet to close its side of the
TCP connection. For validation purposes, the virtual client or
server, whichever is applicable, MAY verify that the DUT/SUT received
the final ACK by re-transmitting the final ACK. A TCP RST should be
received in response to the retransmitted ACK.
Between each iteration, it is RECOMMENDED that the virtual client(s)
or server(s), whichever is applicable, issue a TCP RST referencing
each connection which was attempted to be torn down, regardless of
whether or not the connection tear down attempt was successful. The
test will wait for aging time before continuing to the next
iteration.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.4" href="#section-5.4.4">5.4.4</a> Measurements</span>
Highest connection tear down rate:
Highest rate, in connections per second, for which all TCP
connections were successfully torn down in the search algorithm.
The following tear down time [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>] measurements MUST only include
connections for which both sides of the connection were successfully
torn down. For example, tear down times for connections which are
left in a FINWAIT-2 [<a href="#ref-8" title=""Transmission Control Protocol"">8</a>] state should not be included:
Minimum connection tear down time:
Lowest TCP connection tear down time measured as defined in
<a href="#appendix-C">appendix C</a>.
Maximum connection tear down time:
Highest TCP connection tear down time measured as defined in
<a href="#appendix-C">appendix C</a>.
Average connection tear down time:
The mean of all measurements of connection tear down times.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 15]</span><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Aggregate connection tear down time:
The total of all measurements of connection tear down times.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.5" href="#section-5.4.5">5.4.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test report MUST note the number of connections, aging time,
close method, close direction, minimum TCP connection tear down time,
maximum TCP connection tear down time, average TCP connection tear
down time and the aggregate TCP connection tear down time and highest
connection tear down rate measured. In addition, the test report MUST
conform to the reporting requirements set in <a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in
the format of a table with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD
be rows for the number of TCP tear downs attempted, number and
percentage of TCP connection tear downs completed, minimum TCP
connection tear down time, maximum TCP connection tear down time,
average TCP connection tear down time, aggregate TCP connection tear
down time and validation failures, if required.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5" href="#section-5.5">5.5</a> Denial Of Service Handling</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5.1" href="#section-5.5.1">5.5.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the effect of a denial of service attack on a DUT/SUT
TCP connection establishment and/or HTTP transfer rates. The denial
of service handling test MUST be run after obtaining baseline
measurements from sections <a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a> and/or 5.6.
The TCP SYN flood attack exploits TCP's three-way handshake mechanism
by having an attacking source host generate TCP SYN packets with
random source addresses towards a victim host, thereby consuming that
host's resources.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5.2" href="#section-5.5.2">5.5.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
Use the same setup parameters as defined in <a href="#section-5.3.2">section 5.3.2</a> or 5.6.2,
depending on whether testing against the baseline TCP connection
establishment rate test or HTTP transfer rate test, respectfully.
In addition, the following setup parameters MUST be defined:
SYN attack rate:
Rate, expressed in packets per second, at which the server(s) or
NAT proxy address is targeted with TCP SYN packets.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 16]</span><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5.3" href="#section-5.5.3">5.5.3</a> Procedure</span>
Use the same procedure as defined in <a href="#section-5.3.3">section 5.3.3</a> or 5.6.3,
depending on whether testing against the baseline TCP connection
establishment rate or HTTP transfer rate test, respectfully. In
addition, the test instrument will generate TCP SYN packets targeting
the server(s) IP address or NAT proxy address at a rate defined by
SYN attack rate.
The test instrument originating the TCP SYN attack MUST be attached
to the unprotected network. In addition, the test instrument MUST
not respond to the SYN/ACK packets sent by target server or NAT proxy
in response to the SYN packet.
Some firewalls employ mechanisms to guard against SYN attacks. If
such mechanisms exist on the DUT/SUT, tests SHOULD be run with these
mechanisms enabled and disabled to determine how well the DUT/SUT can
maintain, under such attacks, the baseline connection establishment
rates and HTTP transfer rates determined in <a href="#section-5.3">section 5.3</a> and <a href="#section-5.6">section</a>
<a href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>, respectively.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5.4" href="#section-5.5.4">5.5.4</a> Measurements</span>
Perform the same measurements as defined in <a href="#section-5.3.4">section 5.3.4</a> or 5.6.4,
depending on whether testing against the baseline TCP connection
establishment rate test or HTTP transfer rate, respectfully.
In addition, the test instrument SHOULD track TCP SYN packets
associated with the SYN attack which the DUT/SUT forwards on the
protected or DMZ interface(s).
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5.5" href="#section-5.5.5">5.5.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test SHOULD use the same reporting format as described in <a href="#section-5.3.5">section</a>
<a href="#section-5.3.5">5.3.5</a> or 5.6.5, depending on whether testing against the baseline TCP
connection establishment rate test or HTTP transfer rate,
respectfully.
In addition, the report MUST indicate a denial of service handling
test, SYN attack rate, number of TCP SYN attack packets transmitted
and the number of TCP SYN attack packets forwarded by the DUT/SUT.
The report MUST indicate whether or not the DUT has any SYN attack
mechanisms enabled.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 17]</span><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6" href="#section-5.6">5.6</a> HTTP Transfer Rate</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.1" href="#section-5.6.1">5.6.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the transfer rate of HTTP requested object traversing
the DUT/SUT.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.2" href="#section-5.6.2">5.6.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
The following parameters MUST be defined for all tests:
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.2.1" href="#section-5.6.2.1">5.6.2.1</a> Transport-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Number of connections:
Defines the aggregate number of connections attempted. The number
SHOULD be a multiple of the number of virtual clients
participating in the test.
Close Method:
Defines the method for closing TCP connections. The test MUST be
performed with either a three-way or four-way handshake. In a
four-way handshake, each side sends separate FIN and ACK messages.
In a three-way handshake, one side sends a combined FIN/ACK
message upon receipt of a FIN.
Close Direction:
Defines whether closing of connections are to be initiated from
the client or from the server.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.2.2" href="#section-5.6.2.2">5.6.2.2</a> Application-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Session Type:
The virtual clients/servers MUST use HTTP 1.1 or higher. The
client and server MUST use the same HTTP version.
GET requests per connection:
Defines the number of HTTP 1.1 or higher GET requests attempted
per connection.
Object Size:
Defines the number of bytes, excluding any bytes associated with
the HTTP header, to be transferred in response to an HTTP 1.1 or
higher GET request.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 18]</span><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.3" href="#section-5.6.3">5.6.3</a> Procedure</span>
Each HTTP 1.1 or higher virtual client will request one or more
objects from an HTTP 1.1 or higher server using one or more HTTP GET
requests over each connection. The aggregate number of connections
attempted, defined by number of connections, MUST be evenly divided
among all of the participating virtual clients.
If the virtual client(s) make multiple HTTP GET requests per
connection, it MUST request the same object size for each GET
request. Multiple iterations of this test may be run with objects of
different sizes.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.4" href="#section-5.6.4">5.6.4</a> Measurements</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.4.1" href="#section-5.6.4.1">5.6.4.1</a> Application-Layer measurements</span>
Average Transfer Rate :
The average transfer rate of the DUT/SUT MUST be measured and
shall be referenced to the requested object(s). The measurement
will start on transmission of the first bit of the first requested
object and end on transmission of the last bit of the last
requested object. The average transfer rate, in bits per second,
will be calculated using the following formula:
OBJECTS * OBJECTSIZE * 8
TRANSFER RATE (bit/s) = --------------------------
DURATION
OBJECTS - Total number of objects successfully transferred across
all connections.
OBJECTSIZE - Object size in bytes
DURATION - Aggregate transfer time based on aforementioned time
references.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.4.2" href="#section-5.6.4.2">5.6.4.2</a> Measurements at or below the Transport-Layer</span>
The following measurements SHOULD be performed for each connection-
oriented protocol:
Goodput [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>]:
Goodput as defined in <a href="./rfc2647#section-3.17">section 3.17 of RFC 2647</a>. Measurements MUST
only reference the protocol payload, excluding any of the protocol
header. In addition, the test instrument MUST exclude any bits
associated with the connection establishment, connection tear
down, security associations [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>] or connection maintenance [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>].
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 19]</span><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Since connection-oriented protocols require that data be
acknowledged, the offered load [<a href="#ref-4" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices"">4</a>] will be varying. Therefore,
the test instrument should measure the average forwarding rate
over the duration of the test. Measurement should start on
transmission of the first bit of the payload of the first datagram
and end on transmission of the last bit of the payload of the last
datagram.
Number of bytes transferred - Total payload bytes transferred.
Number of Timeouts - Total number of timeout events.
Retransmitted bytes - Total number of retransmitted bytes.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.5" href="#section-5.6.5">5.6.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test report MUST conform to the reporting requirements set in
<a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.5.1" href="#section-5.6.5.1">5.6.5.1</a> Application-Layer reporting</span>
The test report MUST note number of GET requests per connection and
object size(s).
The transfer rate results SHOULD be reported in tabular form with a
column for each of the object sizes tested. There SHOULD be a row
for the number and percentage of completed requests, number and
percentage of completed responses, and the resultant transfer rate
for each iteration of the test.
Failure analysis:
The test report SHOULD indicate the number and percentage of HTTP
GET request and responses that failed to complete.
Version information:
The test report MUST note the version of HTTP client(s) and
server(s).
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6.5.2" href="#section-5.6.5.2">5.6.5.2</a> Transport-Layer and below reporting</span>
The test report MUST note the number of connections, close method,
close direction and the protocol for which the measurement was made.
The results SHOULD be reported in tabular form for each of the HTTP
object sizes tested. There SHOULD be a row for the total bytes
transferred, total timeouts, total retransmitted bytes and and
resultant goodput. Note that total bytes refers to total datagram
payload bytes transferred. The table MAY be combined with the
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 20]</span><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
application layer reporting, provided the table clearly identifies
the protocol for which the measurement was made.
Failure analysis:
The test report SHOULD indicate the number and percentage of
connection establishment failures as well as number and percentage
of TCP tear down failures.
It is RECOMMENDED that the report include a graph to plot the
distribution of both connection establishment failures and connection
tear down failures. The x coordinate SHOULD be the elapsed test
time, the y coordinate SHOULD be the number of failures for a given
sampling period. There SHOULD be two lines on the graph, one for
connection failures and one for tear down failures. The graph MUST
note the sampling period.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7" href="#section-5.7">5.7</a> Maximum HTTP Transaction Rate</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.1" href="#section-5.7.1">5.7.1</a> Objective</span>
Determine the maximum transaction rate the DUT/SUT can sustain. This
test is intended to find the maximum rate at which users can access
objects.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.2" href="#section-5.7.2">5.7.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.2.1" href="#section-5.7.2.1">5.7.2.1</a> Transport-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Close Method:
Defines method for closing TCP connections. The test MUST be
performed with either a three-way or four-way handshake. In a
four-way handshake, each side sends separate FIN and ACK messages.
In a three-way handshake, one side sends a combined FIN/ACK
message upon receipt of a FIN.
Close Direction:
Defines whether closing of connections are to be initiated from
the client or from the server.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.2.2" href="#section-5.7.2.2">5.7.2.2</a> Application-Layer Setup Parameters</span>
Session Type:
HTTP 1.1 or higher MUST be used for this test. The client and
server MUST use the same HTTP version.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 21]</span><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Test Duration:
Time, expressed in seconds, for which the virtual client(s) will
sustain the attempted GET request rate. It is RECOMMENDED that
the duration be at least 30 seconds.
Requests per connection:
Number of object requests per connection.
Object Size:
Defines the number of bytes, excluding any bytes associated with
the HTTP header, to be transferred in response to an HTTP 1.1 or
higher GET request.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.3" href="#section-5.7.3">5.7.3</a> Procedure</span>
This test will employ an iterative search algorithm to determine the
maximum transaction rate that the DUT/SUT can sustain.
For each iteration, HTTP 1.1 or higher virtual client(s) will vary
the aggregate GET request rate offered to HTTP 1.1 or higher
server(s). The virtual client(s) will maintain the offered request
rate for the defined test duration.
If the virtual client(s) make multiple HTTP GET requests per
connection, it MUST request the same object size for each GET
request. Multiple tests MAY be performed with different object
sizes.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.4" href="#section-5.7.4">5.7.4</a> Measurements</span>
Maximum Transaction Rate:
The maximum rate at which all transactions, that is all
requests/responses cycles, are completed.
Transaction Time:
The test instrument SHOULD measure minimum, maximum and average
transaction times. The transaction time will start when the
virtual client issues the GET request and end when the requesting
virtual client receives the last bit of the requested object.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.5" href="#section-5.7.5">5.7.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
The test report MUST conform to the reporting requirements set in
<a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 22]</span><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.5.1" href="#section-5.7.5.1">5.7.5.1</a> Application-Layer reporting</span>
The test report MUST note the test duration, object size, requests
per connection, minimum transaction time, maximum transaction time,
average transaction time and maximum transaction rate measured
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in a
table format with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD be rows
for the GET request attempt rate, number of requests attempted,
number and percentage of requests completed, number of responses
attempted, number and percentage of responses completed, minimum
transaction time, average transaction time and maximum transaction
time.
Version information:
The test report MUST note the version of HTTP client(s) and
server(s).
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7.5.2" href="#section-5.7.5.2">5.7.5.2</a> Transport-Layer</span>
The test report MUST note the close method, close direction, number
of connections established and number of connections torn down.
The intermediate results of the search algorithm MAY be reported in a
table format with a column for each iteration. There SHOULD be rows
for the number of connections attempted, number and percentage of
connections completed, number and percentage of connection tear downs
completed. The table MAY be combined with the application layer
reporting, provided the table identify this as transport layer
measurement.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8" href="#section-5.8">5.8</a> Illegal Traffic Handling</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8.1" href="#section-5.8.1">5.8.1</a> Objective</span>
To characterize the behavior of the DUT/SUT when presented with a
combination of both legal and Illegal [<a href="#ref-1" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices"">1</a>] traffic. Note that Illegal
traffic does not refer to an attack, but traffic which has been
explicitly defined by a rule(s) to drop.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8.2" href="#section-5.8.2">5.8.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
Setup parameters will use the same parameters as specified in the
HTTP transfer rate test (<a href="#section-5.6.2">Section 5.6.2</a>). In addition, the following
setup parameters MUST be defined:
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 23]</span><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Illegal traffic percentage:
Percentage of HTTP 1.1 or higher connections which have been
explicitly defined in a rule(s) to drop.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8.3" href="#section-5.8.3">5.8.3</a> Procedure</span>
Each HTTP 1.1 or higher client will request one or more objects from
an HTTP 1.1 or higher server using one or more HTTP GET requests over
each connection. The aggregate number of connections attempted,
defined by number of connections, MUST be evenly divided among all of
the participating virtual clients.
The virtual client(s) MUST offer the connection requests, both legal
and illegal, in an evenly distributed manner. Many firewalls have
the capability to filter on different traffic criteria (IP addresses,
Port numbers, etc.). Multiple iterations of this test MAY be run
with the DUT/SUT configured to filter on different traffic criteria.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8.4" href="#section-5.8.4">5.8.4</a> Measurements</span>
The same measurements as defined in HTTP transfer rate test (<a href="#section-5.6.4">Section</a>
<a href="#section-5.6.4">5.6.4</a>) SHOULD be performed. Any forwarding rate measurements MUST
only include bits which are associated with legal traffic.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8.5" href="#section-5.8.5">5.8.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
Test reporting format SHOULD be the same as specified in the HTTP
transfer rate test (<a href="#section-5.6.5">Section 5.6.5</a>).
In addition, the report MUST note the percentage of illegal HTTP
connections.
Failure analysis:
Test report MUST note the number and percentage of illegal
connections that were allowed by the DUT/SUT.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9" href="#section-5.9">5.9</a> IP Fragmentation Handling</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.1" href="#section-5.9.1">5.9.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the performance impact when the DUT/SUT is presented
with IP fragmented traffic. IP packets which have been fragmented,
due to crossing a network that supports a smaller MTU (Maximum
Transmission Unit) than the actual IP packet, may require the
firewall to perform re-assembly prior to the rule set being applied.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 24]</span><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
While IP fragmentation is a common form of attack, either on the
firewall itself or on internal hosts, this test will focus on
determining how the additional processing associated with the re-
assembly of the packets have on the forwarding rate of the DUT/SUT.
<a href="./rfc1858">RFC 1858</a> addresses some fragmentation attacks that get around IP
filtering processes used in routers and hosts.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.2" href="#section-5.9.2">5.9.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
The following parameters MUST be defined.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.2.1" href="#section-5.9.2.1">5.9.2.1</a> Non-Fragmented Traffic Parameters</span>
Setup parameters will be the same as defined in the HTTP transfer
rate test (Sections <a href="#section-5.6.2.1">5.6.2.1</a> and <a href="#section-5.6.2.2">5.6.2.2</a>).
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.2.2" href="#section-5.9.2.2">5.9.2.2</a> Fragmented Traffic Parameters</span>
Packet size:
Number of bytes in the IP/UDP packet, exclusive of link-layer
headers and checksums, prior to fragmentation.
MTU:
Maximum transmission unit, expressed in bytes. For testing
purposes, this MAY be configured to values smaller than the MTU
supported by the link layer.
Intended Load:
Intended load, expressed as percentage of media utilization.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.3" href="#section-5.9.3">5.9.3</a> Procedure</span>
Each HTTP 1.1 or higher client will request one or more objects from
an HTTP 1.1 or higher server using one or more HTTP GET requests over
each connection. The aggregate number of connections attempted,
defined by number of connections, MUST be evenly divided among all of
the participating virtual clients. If the virtual client(s) make
multiple HTTP GET requests per connection, it MUST request the same
object size for each GET request.
A test instrument attached to the unprotected side of the network,
will offer a unidirectional stream of unicast fragmented IP/UDP
traffic, targeting a server attached to either the protected or DMZ
segment. The test instrument MUST offer the unidirectional stream
over the duration of the test, that is, duration over which the HTTP
traffic is being offered.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 25]</span><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Baseline measurements SHOULD be performed with IP filtering deny
rule(s) to filter fragmented traffic. If the DUT/SUT has logging
capability, the log SHOULD be checked to determine if it contains the
correct information regarding the fragmented traffic.
The test SHOULD be repeated with the DUT/SUT rule set changed to
allow the fragmented traffic through. When running multiple
iterations of the test, it is RECOMMENDED to vary the MTU while
keeping all other parameters constant.
Then setup the DUT/SUT to the policy or rule set the manufacturer
required to be defined to protect against fragmentation attacks and
repeat the measurements outlined in the baseline procedures.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.4" href="#section-5.9.4">5.9.4</a> Measurements</span>
Test instrument SHOULD perform the same measurements as defined in
HTTP test (<a href="#section-5.6.4">Section 5.6.4</a>).
Transmitted UDP/IP Packets:
Number of UDP packets transmitted by client.
Received UDP/IP Packets:
Number of UDP/IP Packets received by server.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.5" href="#section-5.9.5">5.9.5</a> Reporting Format</span>
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.5.1" href="#section-5.9.5.1">5.9.5.1</a> Non-Fragmented Traffic</span>
The test report SHOULD be the same as described in <a href="#section-5.6.5">section 5.6.5</a>.
Note that any forwarding rate measurements for the HTTP traffic
excludes any bits associated with the fragmented traffic which may be
forward by the DUT/SUT.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9.5.2" href="#section-5.9.5.2">5.9.5.2</a> Fragmented Traffic</span>
The test report MUST note the packet size, MTU size, intended load,
number of UDP/IP packets transmitted and number of UDP/IP packets
forwarded. The test report SHOULD also note whether or not the
DUT/SUT forwarded the offered UDP/IP traffic fragmented.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10" href="#section-5.10">5.10</a> Latency</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.1" href="#section-5.10.1">5.10.1</a> Objective</span>
To determine the latency of network-layer or application-layer data
traversing the DUT/SUT. <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a> [<a href="#ref-3" title=""Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices"">3</a>] defines latency.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 26]</span><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.2" href="#section-5.10.2">5.10.2</a> Setup Parameters</span>
The following parameters MUST be defined:
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.2.1" href="#section-5.10.2.1">5.10.2.1</a> Network-layer Measurements</span>
Packet size, expressed as the number of bytes in the IP packet,
exclusive of link-layer headers and checksums.
Intended load, expressed as percentage of media utilization.
Test duration, expressed in seconds.
The test instruments MUST generate packets with unique timestamp
signatures.
<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.2.2" href="#section-5.10.2.2">5.10.2.2</a> Application-layer Measurements</span>
Object Size:
Defines the number of bytes, excluding any bytes associated with
the HTTP header, to be transferred in response to an HTTP 1.1 or
higher GET request. The minimum object size supported by the
media SHOULD be used, but other object sizes MAY be used as well.
Connection type:
The test instrument MUST use one HTTP 1.1 or higher connection for
latency measurements.
Number of objects requested.
Number of objects transferred.
Test duration, expressed in seconds.
Test instruments MUST generate packets with unique timestamp
signatures.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.3" href="#section-5.10.3">5.10.3</a> Network-layer procedure</span>
A client will offer a unidirectional stream of unicast packets to a
server. The packets MUST use a connectionless protocol like IP or
UDP/IP.
The test instrument MUST offer packets in a steady state. As noted
in the latency discussion in <a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a> [<a href="#ref-2" title=""Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"">2</a>], latency measurements MUST
be taken at the throughput level, that is, at the highest offered
load with zero packet loss. Measurements taken at the throughput
level are the only ones that can legitimately be termed latency.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 27]</span><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
It is RECOMMENDED that implementers use offered loads not only at the
throughput level, but also at load levels that are less than or
greater than the throughput level. To avoid confusion with existing
terminology, measurements from such tests MUST be labeled as delay
rather than latency.
It is RECOMMENDED to perform the latency measurements with different
packet sizes. When testing with different packet sizes the DUT/SUT
configuration MUST remain the same.
If desired, a step test MAY be used in which offered loads increment
or decrement through a range of load levels.
The duration of the test portion of each trial MUST be at least 30
seconds.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.4" href="#section-5.10.4">5.10.4</a> Application layer procedure</span>
An HTTP 1.1 or higher client will request one or more objects from an
HTTP 1.1 or higher server using one or more HTTP GET requests. If
the test instrument makes multiple HTTP GET requests, it MUST request
the same-sized object each time. Multiple iterations of this test
may be performed with objects of different sizes.
Implementers MAY configure the test instrument to run for a fixed
duration. In this case, the test instrument MUST report the number
of objects requested and returned for the duration of the test. For
fixed-duration tests it is RECOMMENDED that the duration be at least
30 seconds.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.5" href="#section-5.10.5">5.10.5</a> Measurements</span>
Minimum delay:
The smallest delay incurred by data traversing the DUT/SUT at the
network layer or application layer, as appropriate.
Maximum delay:
The largest delay incurred by data traversing the DUT/SUT at the
network layer or application layer, as appropriate.
Average delay:
The mean of all measurements of delay incurred by data traversing
the DUT/SUT at the network layer or application layer, as
appropriate.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 28]</span><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Delay distribution:
A set of histograms of all delay measurements observed for data
traversing the DUT/SUT at the network layer or application layer,
as appropriate.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.6" href="#section-5.10.6">5.10.6</a> Network-layer reporting format</span>
The test report MUST note the packet size(s), offered load(s) and
test duration used. In addition, the test report MUST conform to the
reporting requirements set in <a href="#section-4">section 4</a>, Test Setup.
The latency results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with
a row for each of the tested packet sizes. There SHOULD be columns
for the packet size, the intended rate, the offered rate, and the
resultant latency or delay values for each test.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10.7" href="#section-5.10.7">5.10.7</a> Application-layer reporting format</span>
The test report MUST note the object size(s) and number of requests
and responses completed. If applicable, the report MUST note the
test duration if a fixed duration was used. In addition, the test
report MUST conform to the reporting requirements set in <a href="#section-4">section 4</a>,
Test Setup.
The latency results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with
a row for each of the object sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the
object size, the number of completed requests, the number of
completed responses, and the resultant latency or delay values for
each test.
Failure analysis:
The test report SHOULD indicate the number and percentage of HTTP
GET request or responses that failed to complete within the test
duration.
Version information:
The test report MUST note the version of HTTP client and server.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a> Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-1">1</a>] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Devices", <a href="./rfc2647">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2647">2647</a>, August 1999.
[<a id="ref-2">2</a>] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", <a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>, March 1999.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 29]</span><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
[<a id="ref-3">3</a>] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>, July 1991.
[<a id="ref-4">4</a>] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", <a href="./rfc2285">RFC 2285</a>, February 1998.
[<a id="ref-5">5</a>] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology for LAN
Switching Devices", <a href="./rfc2889">RFC 2889</a>, August 2000.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a> Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-6">6</a>] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -
HTTP/1.1", <a href="./rfc2616">RFC 2616</a>, June 1999.
[<a id="ref-7">7</a>] Clark, D., "IP Datagram Reassembly Algorithm", <a href="./rfc815">RFC 815</a>, July
1982.
[<a id="ref-8">8</a>] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, <a href="./rfc793">RFC 793</a>,
September 1981.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The primary goal of this document is to provide methodologies in
benchmarking firewall performance. While there is some overlap
between performance and security issues, assessment of firewall
security is outside the scope of this document.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 30]</span><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
APPENDIX A: HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol)
The most common versions of HTTP in use today are HTTP/1.0 and
HTTP/1.1 with the main difference being in regard to persistent
connections. HTTP 1.0, by default, does not support persistent
connections. A separate TCP connection is opened up for each GET
request the client wants to initiate and closed after the requested
object transfer is completed. While some implementations HTTP/1.0
supports persistence through the use of a keep-alive, there is no
official specification for how the keep-alive operates. In addition,
HTTP 1.0 proxies do support persistent connection as they do not
recognize the connection header.
HTTP/1.1, by default, does support persistent connection and is
therefore the version that is referenced in this methodology. Proxy
based DUT/SUTs may monitor the TCP connection and after a timeout,
close the connection if no activity is detected. The duration of
this timeout is not defined in the HTTP/1.1 specification and will
vary between DUT/SUTs. If the DUT/SUT closes inactive connections,
the aging timer on the DUT SHOULD be configured for a duration that
exceeds the test time.
While this document cannot foresee future changes to HTTP and it
impact on the methodologies defined herein, such changes should be
accommodated for so that newer versions of HTTP may be used in
benchmarking firewall performance.
APPENDIX B: Connection Establishment Time Measurements
Some connection oriented protocols, such as TCP, involve an odd
number of messages when establishing a connection. In the case of
proxy based DUT/SUTs, the DUT/SUT will terminate the connection,
setting up a separate connection to the server. Since, in such
cases, the test instrument does not own both sides of the connection,
measurements will be made two different ways. While the following
describes the measurements with reference to TCP, the methodology may
be used with other connection oriented protocols which involve an odd
number of messages.
When testing non-proxy based DUT/SUTs , the establishment time shall
be directly measured and is considered to be from the time the first
bit of the first SYN packet is transmitted by the client to the time
the last bit of the final ACK in the three-way handshake is received
by the target server.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 31]</span><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
If the DUT/SUT is proxy based, the connection establishment time is
considered to be from the time the first bit of the first SYN packet
is transmitted by the client to the time the client transmits the
first bit of the first acknowledged TCP datagram (t4-t0 in the
following timeline).
t0: Client sends a SYN.
t1: Proxy sends a SYN/ACK.
t2: Client sends the final ACK.
t3: Proxy establishes separate connection with server.
t4: Client sends TCP datagram to server.
*t5: Proxy sends ACK of the datagram to client.
* While t5 is not considered part of the TCP connection
establishment, acknowledgement of t4 must be received for the
connection to be considered successful.
APPENDIX C: Connection Tear Down Time Measurements
While TCP connections are full duplex, tearing down of such
connections are performed in a simplex fashion, that is, FIN segments
are sent by each host/device terminating each side of the TCP
connection.
When making connection tear down times measurements, such
measurements will be made from the perspective of the entity, that
is, virtual client/server initiating the connection tear down
request. In addition, the measurement will be performed in the same
manner, independent of whether or not the DUT/SUT is proxy-based. The
connection tear down will be considered the interval between the
transmission of the first bit of the first TCP FIN packet transmitted
by the virtual client or server, whichever is applicable, requesting
a connection tear down to receipt of the last bit of the
corresponding ACK packet on the same virtual client/server interface.
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 32]</span><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Authors' Addresses
Brooks Hickman
Spirent Communications
26750 Agoura Road
Calabasas, CA 91302
USA
Phone: + 1 818 676 2412
EMail: [email protected]
David Newman
Network Test Inc.
31324 Via Colinas, Suite 113
Westlake Village, CA 91362-6761
USA
Phone: + 1 818 889-0011
EMail: [email protected]
Saldju Tadjudin
Spirent Communications
26750 Agoura Road
Calabasas, CA 91302
USA
Phone: + 1 818 676 2468
EMail: [email protected]
Terry Martin
GVNW Consulting Inc.
8050 SW Warm Springs Road
Tualatin Or. 97062
USA
Phone: + 1 503 612 4422
EMail: [email protected]
<span class="grey">Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 33]</span><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3511">RFC 3511</a> Methodology for Firewall Performance April 2003</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Hickman, et al. Informational [Page 34]
Annotations
Select text to annotate