Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9411.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Balamuhunthan Balarajah , Carsten Rossenhoevel , Brian Monkman | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-09 (Latest revision 2019-11-19) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART Telechat review
(of
-13)
by Tommy Pauly
Almost ready
GENART Telechat review
(of
-13)
by Matt Joras
Ready w/issues
IOTDIR Telechat review
(of
-13)
by Toerless Eckert
On the Right Track
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-12)
by Tommy Pauly
On the Right Track
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Al Morton | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9411 (Informational) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | Al Morton <acm@research.att.com> |
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-03
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational C. Rossenhoevel
Expires: September 10, 2020 EANTC AG
B. Monkman
NetSecOPEN
March 9, 2020
Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-03
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. This
document aims to strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility,
and transparency of benchmarks and to align the test methodology with
today's increasingly complex layer 7 application use cases. The main
areas covered in this document are test terminology, traffic profiles
and benchmarking methodology for NGFWs 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 September 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. DUT/SUT Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Test Equipment Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Client Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2. Backend Server Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.3. Traffic Flow Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.4. Traffic Load Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Test Bed Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Key Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Throughput Performance With NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix . . . 17
7.1.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 22
7.3. HTTP Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 26
7.4. TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 29
7.5. Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . . 30
7.5.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.5.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.5.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.5.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 32
7.6. TCP/HTTPS Connections per second . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.6.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.6.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 36
7.7. HTTPS Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.7.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.7.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.7.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.7.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 40
7.8. HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.8.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.8.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.8.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.8.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . . 43
7.9. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . 44
7.9.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.9.2. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.9.3. Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.9.4. Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . . 46
8. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix A. NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1. Introduction
15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC2647], [RFC3511]). The
requirements for network security element performance and
effectiveness have increased tremendously since then. Security
function implementations have evolved to more advanced areas and have
diversified into intrusion detection and prevention, threat
management, analysis of encrypted traffic, etc. In an industry of
growing importance, well-defined and reproducible key performance
indicators (KPIs) are increasingly needed as they enable fair and
reasonable comparison of network security functions. All these
reasons have led to the creation of a new next-generation firewall
benchmarking document.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
2. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119], [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Scope
This document provides testing terminology and testing methodology
for next-generation firewalls security devices. It covers security
effectiveness configurations, followed by performance benchmark
testing. This 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 is applicable to all benchmarking
test scenarios described in Section 7.
4.1. Testbed Configuration
Testbed configuration MUST ensure that any performance implications
that are discovered during the benchmark testing aren't due to the
inherent physical network limitations such as number of physical
links and forwarding performance capabilities (throughput and
latency) of the network devise in the testbed. For this reason, this
document recommends avoiding external devices such as switches and
routers in the testbed wherever possible.
However, in the typical deployment, the security devices (Device
Under Test/System Under Test) are connected to routers and switches
which will reduce the number of entries in MAC or ARP tables of the
Device Under Test/System Under Test (DUT/SUT). If MAC or ARP tables
have many entries, this may impact the actual DUT/SUT performance due
to MAC and ARP/ND table lookup processes. Therefore, it is
RECOMMENDED to connect aggregation switches or routers between test
equipment and DUT/SUT as shown in Figure 1. The aggregation switches
or routers can be also used to aggregate the test equipment or DUT/
SUT ports, if the numbers of used ports are mismatched between test
equipment and DUT/SUT.
If the test equipment is capable of emulating layer 3 routing
functionality and there is no need for test equipment port
aggregation, it is RECOMMENDED to configure the test setup as shown
in Figure 2.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
+-------------------+ +-----------+ +--------------------+
|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
A unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all benchmarking
tests described in Section 7. Since each DUT/SUT will have their own
unique configuration, users SHOULD configure their device with the
same parameters and security features that would be used in the
actual deployment of the device or a typical deployment in order to
achieve maximum security coverage.
This document attempts to define the recommended security features
which SHOULD be consistently enabled for all the benchmarking tests
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
described in Section 7. Table 1 below describes the sets of security
feature list which SHOULD be configured on the DUT/SUT.
Based on customer use case, users MAY enable or disable SSL
inspection feature for "Throughput Performance with NetSecOPEN
Traffic Mix" test scenario described in Section 7.1
To improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT configuration
including description of all enabled DUT/SUT features MUST be
published with the benchmarking results.
+------------------------+
| NGFW |
+-------------- +-------------+----------+
| | | |
|DUT Features | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL |
| | | |
+----------------------------------------+
|SSL Inspection | x | |
+----------------------------------------+
|IDS/IPS | x | |
+----------------------------------------+
|Web Filtering | | x |
+----------------------------------------+
|Antivirus | x | |
+----------------------------------------+
|Anti Spyware | x | |
+----------------------------------------+
|Anti Botnet | x | |
+----------------------------------------+
|DLP | | x |
+----------------------------------------+
|DDoS | | x |
+----------------------------------------+
|Certificate | | x |
|Validation | | |
+----------------------------------------+
|Logging and | x | |
|Reporting | | |
+-------------- +------------------------+
|Application | x | |
|Identification | | |
+---------------+-------------+----------+
Table 1: DUT/SUT Feature List
In summary, DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured as follows:
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
o All security inspection enabled
o Disposition of all flows of traffic are logged - Logging to an
external device is permissible
o Detection of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) matching
the following characteristics when searching the National
Vulnerability Database (NVD)
* Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Version: 2
* CVSS V2 Metrics: AV:N/Au:N/I:C/A:C
* AV=Attack Vector, Au=Authentication, I=Integrity and
A=Availability
* CVSS V2 Severity: High (7-10)
* If doing a group test the published start date and published
end date SHOULD be the same
o Geographical location filtering and Application Identification and
Control configured to be triggered based on a site or application
from the defined traffic mix
In addition, a realistic number of access control rules (ACL) MUST be
configured on the DUT/SUT. However, this is applicable only for the
security devices where ACL's are configurable. This document
determines the number of access policy rules for four different
classes of DUT/SUT. The classification of the DUT/SUT MAY be based
on its maximum supported firewall throughput performance number
defined in the vendor data sheet. This document classifies the DUT/
SUT in four different categories; namely Extra Small, Small, Medium,
and Large.
The RECOMMENDED throughput values for the following classes are:
Extra Small (XS) - supported throughput less than 1Gbit/s
Small (S) - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s
Medium (M) - supported throughput greater than 5Gbit/s and less than
10Gbit/s
Large (L) - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
The Access Control Rules (ACL) defined in Table 2 MUST be configured
from top to bottom in the correct order as shown in the table. The
ACL entries MUST be configured in Forward Information Base (FIB)
table of the DUT/SUT. (Note: There will be differences between how
security vendors implement ACL decision making.) The configured ACL
MUST NOT block the security and performance test traffic used for the
benchmarking test scenarios.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
+---------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| | DUT/SUT |
| | Classification|
| | #rules |
+-----------+-----------+------------------+------------+---+---+---+
| | Match | | | | | | |
| Rules Type| Criteria | Description | Action | XS| S | M | L |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application|Application| Any application | block | 5 | 10| 20| 50|
|layer | | traffic NOT | | | | | |
| | | included in the | | | | | |
| | | test traffic | | | | | |
+-----------------------+ ------------------------------------------+
|Transport |Src IP and | Any src IP subnet| block | 25| 50|100|250|
|layer |TCP/UDP | used in the test | | | | | |
| |Dst ports | AND any dst ports| | | | | |
| | | NOT used in the | | | | | |
| | | test traffic | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|IP layer |Src/Dst IP | Any src/dst IP | block | 25| 50|100|250|
| | | subnet NOT used | | | | | |
| | | in the test | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Application|Application| Applications | allow | 10| 10| 10| 10|
|layer | | included in the | | | | | |
| | | test traffic | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transport |Src IP and | Half of the src | allow | 1| 1| 1| 1|
|layer |TCP/UDP | IP used in the | | | | | |
| |Dst ports | test AND any dst | | | | | |
| | | ports used in the| | | | | |
| | | test traffic. One| | | | | |
| | | rule per subnet | | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|IP layer |Src IP | The rest of the | allow | 1| 1| 1| 1|
| | | src IP subnet | | | | | |
| | | range used in the| | | | | |
| | | test. One rule | | | | | |
| | | per subnet | | | | | |
+-----------+-----------+------------------+--------+---+---+---+---+
Table 2: DUT/SUT Access List
4.3. Test Equipment Configuration
In general, test equipment allows configuring parameters in different
protocol layers. These parameters thereby influence the traffic
flows which will be offered and impact performance measurements.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
This section specifies common test equipment configuration parameters
applicable for all test scenarios defined in Section 7. Any test
scenario specific parameters are described under the test setup
section of each test scenario individually.
4.3.1. Client Configuration
This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considered while
configuring clients using test equipment. Also, this section
specifies the RECOMMENDED values for certain parameters.
4.3.1.1. TCP Stack Attributes
The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno [RFC5681] variant, which include
congestion avoidance, back off and windowing, fast retransmission,
and fast recovery on every TCP connection between client and server
endpoints. The default IPv4 and IPv6 MSS segments size MUST be set
to 1460 bytes and 1440 bytes respectively and a TX and RX receive
windows of 64 KByte. Client initial congestion window MUST NOT
exceed 10 times the MSS. Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum
client delayed Ack MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS before a forced
ACK. Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is
declared. All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high. The source
port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 - 65535. Internal timeout
SHOULD be dynamically scalable per RFC 793. Client SHOULD initiate
and close TCP connections. TCP connections MUST be closed via FIN.
4.3.1.2. Client IP Address Space
The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following
attributes. The IP blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique,
discontinuous static address blocks. A default gateway is permitted.
The IPv4 Type of Service (ToS) byte or IPv6 traffic class should be
set to '00' or '000000' respectively.
The following equation can be used to determine the required total
number of client IP addresses.
Desired total number of client IP = Target throughput [Mbit/s] /
Throughput per IP address [Mbit/s]
Based on deployment and use case scenario, the value for "Throughput
per IP address" can be varied.
(Option 1) DUT/SUT deployment scenario 1 : 6-7 Mbit/s per IP (e.g.
1,400-1,700 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput)
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
(Option 2) DUT/SUT deployment scenario 2 : 0.1-0.2 Mbit/s per IP
(e.g. 50,000-100,000 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput)
Based on deployment and use case scenario, client IP addresses SHOULD
be distributed between IPv4 and IPv6 type. The Following options can
be considered for a selection of traffic mix ratio.
(Option 1) 100 % IPv4, no IPv6
(Option 2) 80 % IPv4, 20% IPv6
(Option 3) 50 % IPv4, 50% IPv6
(Option 4) 20 % IPv4, 80% IPv6
(Option 5) no IPv4, 100% IPv6
4.3.1.3. Emulated Web Browser Attributes
The emulated web browser contains attributes that will materially
affect how traffic is loaded. The objective is to emulate modern,
typical browser attributes to improve realism of the result set.
For HTTP traffic emulation, the emulated browser MUST negotiate HTTP
1.1. HTTP persistency MAY be enabled depending on test scenario.
The browser MAY open multiple TCP connections per Server endpoint IP
at any time depending on how many sequential transactions are needed
to be processed. Within the TCP connection multiple transactions MAY
be processed if the emulated browser has available connections. The
browser SHOULD advertise a User-Agent header. Headers MUST be sent
uncompressed. The browser SHOULD enforce content length validation.
For encrypted traffic, the following attributes SHALL define the
negotiated encryption parameters. The test clients MUST use TLSv1.2
or higher. TLS record size MAY be optimized for the HTTPS response
object size up to a record size of 16 KByte. The client endpoint
MUST send TLS Extension Server Name Indication (SNI) information when
opening a security tunnel. Each client connection MUST perform a
full handshake with server certificate and MUST NOT use session reuse
or resumption. Cipher suite and key size are defined in the
parameter section of the specific test scenarios.
4.3.2. Backend Server Configuration
This section specifies which parameters should be considered while
configuring emulated backend servers using test equipment.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
4.3.2.1. TCP Stack Attributes
The TCP stack on the server side SHOULD be configured similar to the
client side configuration described in Section 4.3.1.1. In addition,
server initial congestion window MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS.
Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum server delayed ACK MUST
NOT exceed 10 times the MSS before a forced ACK.
4.3.2.2. Server Endpoint IP Addressing
The server IP blocks SHOULD consist of unique, discontinuous static
address blocks with one IP per Server Fully Qualified Domain Name
(FQDN) endpoint per test port. The IPv4 ToS byte and IPv6 traffic
class bytes should be set to '00' and '000000' respectively.
4.3.2.3. HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes
The server pool for HTTP SHOULD listen on TCP port 80 and emulate
HTTP version 1.1 with persistence. The Server MUST advertise server
type in the Server response header [RFC2616]. For HTTPS server, TLS
1.2 or higher MUST be used with a maximum record size of 16 KByte and
MUST NOT use ticket resumption or Session ID reuse . The server MUST
listen on port TCP 443. The server SHALL serve a certificate to the
client. It is REQUIRED that the HTTPS server also check Host SNI
information with the FQDN. Cipher suite and key size are defined in
the parameter section of the specific test scenarios.
4.3.3. Traffic Flow Definition
This section describes the traffic pattern between client and server
endpoints. At the beginning of the test, the server endpoint
initializes and will be ready to accept connection states including
initialization of the TCP stack as well as bound HTTP and HTTPS
servers. When a client endpoint is needed, it will initialize and be
given attributes such as a MAC and IP address. The behavior of the
client is to sweep 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 (FQDN) in Host Headers
and for TLS Server Name Indication (SNI).
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
4.3.3.1. Description of Intra-Client Behavior
Client endpoints are independent of other clients that are
concurrently executing. When a client endpoint initiates traffic,
this section describes how the client steps though different
services. Once the test is initialized, the client endpoints SHOULD
randomly hold (perform no operation) for a few milliseconds to allow
for better randomization of start of client traffic. Each client
will either open a new TCP connection or connect to a TCP persistence
stack still open to that specific server. At any point that the
service profile may require encryption, a TLS encryption tunnel will
form presenting the URL 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 HTTPS response object. The initial response
object to the server MUST NOT have a fixed size; its size is based on
benchmarking tests described in Section 7. Multiple additional sub-
URLs (response objects on the service page) MAY be requested
simultaneously. This MAY be to the same server IP as the initial
URL. Each sub-object will also use a conical FQDN and URL path, as
observed in the traffic mix used.
4.3.4. Traffic Load Profile
The loading of traffic is described in this section. The loading of
a traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init, ramp up,
sustain, ramp down, and collection.
1. During the Init phase, 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 RECOMMEND
time for Init phase is 5 seconds. During this phase, the
emulated clients SHOULD NOT initiate any sessions with the DUT/
SUT, in contrast, the emulated servers should be ready to accept
requests from DUT/SUT or from emulated clients.
2. In the ramp up phase, the test equipment SHOULD start to generate
the test traffic. It SHOULD use a set approximate number of
unique client IP addresses actively to generate traffic. The
traffic SHOULD ramp from zero to desired target objective. The
target objective will be defined for each benchmarking test. The
duration for the ramp up phase MUST be configured long enough, so
that the test equipment does not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported
performance metrics namely; connections per second, throughput,
concurrent TCP connections, and application transactions per
second. No measurements are made in this phase.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
3. In the sustain phase, the test equipment SHOULD continue
generating traffic to constant target value for a constant number
of active client IPs. The mininum RECOMMENDED time duration for
sustain phase is 300 seconds. This is the phase where
measurements occur.
4. In the ramp down/close phase, no new connections are established,
and no measurements are made. The time duration for ramp up and
ramp down phase SHOULD be same.
5. The last phase is administrative and will occur when the test
equipment merges and collates the report data.
5. Test Bed Considerations
This section recommends steps to control the test environment and
test equipment, specifically focusing on virtualized environments and
virtualized test equipment.
1. Ensure that any ancillary switching or routing functions between
the system under test and the test equipment do not limit the
performance of the traffic generator. This is specifically
important for virtualized components (vSwitches, vRouters).
2. Verify that the performance of the test equipment matches and
reasonably exceeds the expected maximum performance of the system
under test.
3. Assert that the test bed characteristics are stable during the
entire test session. Several factors might influence stability
specifically for virtualized test beds. For example additional
workloads in a virtualized system, load balancing and movement of
virtual machines during the test, or simple issues such as
additional heat created by high workloads leading to an emergency
CPU performance reduction.
Test bed reference pre-tests help to ensure that the maximum desired
traffic generator aspects such as throughput, transaction per second,
connection per second, concurrent connection and latency.
Once the desired maximum performance goals for the system under test
have been identified, a safety margin of 10% SHOULD be added for
throughput and subtracted for maximum latency and maximum packet
loss.
Test bed preparation may be performed either by configuring the DUT
in the most trivial setup (fast forwarding) or without presence of
DUT.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
6. Reporting
This section describes how the final report should be formatted and
presented. The final test report MAY have two major sections;
Introduction and result sections. The following attributes SHOULD be
present in the introduction section of the test report.
1. The name of the NetSecOPEN traffic mix (see Appendix A) MUST be
prominent.
2. The time and date of the execution of the test MUST be prominent.
3. Summary of testbed software and Hardware details
A. DUT Hardware/Virtual Configuration
+ This section SHOULD clearly identify the make and model of
the DUT
+ The port interfaces, including speed and link information
MUST be documented.
+ If the DUT is a virtual VNF, interface acceleration such
as DPDK and SR-IOV MUST be documented as well as cores
used, RAM used, and the pinning / resource sharing
configuration. The Hypervisor and version MUST be
documented.
+ Any additional hardware relevant to the DUT such as
controllers MUST be documented
B. DUT Software
+ The operating system name MUST be documented
+ The version MUST be documented
+ The specific configuration MUST be documented
C. DUT Enabled Features
+ Configured DUT/SUT features (see Table 1) MUST be
documented
+ Attributes of those featured MUST be documented
+ Any additional relevant information about features MUST be
documented
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
D. Test equipment hardware and software
+ Test equipment vendor name
+ Hardware details including model number, interface type
+ Test equipment firmware and test application software
version
4. Results Summary / Executive Summary
1. Results SHOULD resemble a pyramid in how it is reported, with
the introduction section documenting the summary of results
in a prominent, easy to read block.
2. In the result section of the test report, the following
attributes should be present for each test scenario.
a. KPIs MUST be documented separately for each test
scenario. The format of the KPI metrics should be
presented as described in Section 6.1.
b. The next level of details SHOULD be graphs showing each
of these metrics over the duration (sustain phase) of the
test. This allows the user to see the measured
performance stability changes over time.
6.1. Key Performance Indicators
This section lists KPIs for overall benchmarking tests scenarios.
All KPIs MUST be measured during the sustain phase of the traffic
load profile described in Section 4.3.4. All KPIs MUST be measured
from the result output of test equipment.
o Concurrent TCP Connections
This key performance indicator measures the average concurrent
open TCP connections in the sustaining period.
o TCP Connections Per Second
This key performance indicator measures the average established
TCP connections per second in the sustaining period. For "TCP/
HTTP(S) Connection Per Second" benchmarking test scenario, the KPI
is measured average established and terminated TCP connections per
second simultaneously.
o Application Transactions Per Second
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
This key performance indicator measures the average successfully
completed application transactions per second in the sustaining
period.
o TLS Handshake Rate
This key performance indicator measures the average TLS 1.2 or
higher session formation rate within the sustaining period.
o Throughput
This key performance indicator measures the average Layer 2
throughput within the sustaining period as well as average packets
per seconds within the same period. The value of throughput
SHOULD be presented in Gbit/s rounded to two places of precision
with a more specific Kbit/s in parenthesis. Optionally, goodput
MAY also be logged as an average goodput rate measured over the
same period. Goodput result SHALL also be presented in the same
format as throughput.
o URL Response time / Time to Last Byte (TTLB)
This key performance indicator measures the minimum, average and
maximum per URL response time in the sustaining period. The
latency is measured at Client and in this case would be the time
duration between sending a GET request from Client and the
receival of the complete response from the server.
o Time to First Byte (TTFB)
This key performance indicator will measure minimum, average and
maximum the time to first byte. TTFB is the elapsed time between
sending the SYN packet from the client and receiving the first
byte of application date from the DUT/SUT. TTFB SHOULD be
expressed in millisecond.
7. Benchmarking Tests
7.1. Throughput Performance With NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix
7.1.1. Objective
Using NetSecOPEN traffic mix, determine the maximum sustainable
throughput performance supported by the DUT/SUT. (see Appendix A for
details about traffic mix)
This test scenario is RECOMMENDED to perform twice; one with SSL
inspection feature enabled and the second scenario with SSL
inspection feature disabled on the DUT/SUT.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.1.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup MUST be configured as defined in Section 4. Any test
scenario specific test bed configuration changes MUST be documented.
7.1.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.1.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.1.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
noted for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target throughput: It can be defined based on requirements.
Otherwise it represents aggregated line rate of interface(s) used
in the DUT/SUT
Initial throughput: 10% of the "Target throughput"
One of the following ciphers and keys are RECOMMENDED to use for
this test scenarios.
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
sepc256r1)
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 and Supported group:
sepc521r1)
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)
7.1.3.3. Traffic Profile
Traffic profile: Test scenario MUST be run with a single application
traffic mix profile (see Appendix A for details about traffic mix).
The name of the NetSecOPEN traffic mix MUST be documented.
7.1.3.4. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.
a. Number of failed application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of total attempt transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. Maximum deviation (max. dev) of URL Response Time or TTLB (Time
To Last Byte) MUST be less than X (The value for "X" will be
finalized and updated after completion of PoC test)
The following equation MUST be used to calculate the deviation of
URL Response Time or TTLB
max. dev = max((avg_latency - min_latency),(max_latency -
avg_latency)) / (Initial latency)
Where, the initial latency is calculated using the following
equation. For this calculation, the latency values (min', avg'
and max') MUST be measured during test procedure step 1 as
defined in Section 7.1.4.1.
The variable latency represents URL Response Time or TTLB.
Initial latency:= min((avg' latency - min' latency) | (max'
latency - avg' latency))
d. Maximum value of Time to First Byte (TTFB) MUST be less than X
7.1.3.5. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.
Mandatory KPIs: average Throughput, TTFB (minimum, average and
maximum), TTLB (minimum, average and maximum) and average Application
Transactions Per Second
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Note: TTLB MUST be reported along with min, max and avg object size
used in the traffic profile.
Optional KPIs: average TCP Connections Per Second and average TLS
Handshake Rate
7.1.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedures are designed to measure the throughput
performance of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps.
7.1.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to generate test
traffic at the "Initial throughput" rate as described in the
parameters Section 7.1.3.2. The test equipment SHOULD follow the
traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4. The
DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial throughput" during the sustain
phase. Measure all KPI as defined in Section 7.1.3.5. The measured
KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet validation criteria "a" and
"b" defined in Section 7.1.3.4.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to step 2.
7.1.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to generate traffic at the "Target
throughput" rate defined in the parameter table. The test equipment
SHOULD follow the traffic load profile definition as described in
Section 4.3.4. The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record
all specified KPIs. The frequency of KPI metric measurements SHOULD
be 2 seconds. Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are
completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target throughput during
the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all
validation criteria. Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet
the validation criteria.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.1.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
validation criteria. Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.2. TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second
7.2.1. Objective
Using HTTP traffic, determine the maximum sustainable TCP connection
establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
To measure connections per second, test iterations MUST use different
fixed HTTP response object sizes defined in Section 7.2.3.2.
7.2.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. MUST be documented.
7.2.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.2.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.2.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target connections per second: Initial value from product data sheet
(if known)
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
second" (an optional parameter for documentation)
The client SHOULD negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connection with
FIN immediately after completion of one transaction. In each test
iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTP
response object size.
The RECOMMENDED response object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16, 64 KByte
7.2.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of total attempt transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate
d. Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
almost at the same rate
7.2.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metric MUST be reported for each test iteration.
average TCP Connections Per Second
7.2.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections per
second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of the traffic
load profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps.
This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IP
types; IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic
distribution.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.2.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure the traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial connections per second" as defined in the parameters
Section 7.2.3.2. The traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as
described in Section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial connections per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet validation criteria a, b, c, and d defined in Section 7.2.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.2.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow
the traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase of each test iteration, other
KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and application
transactions per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/
SUT can support. The test results for specific test iterations
SHOULD NOT be reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially
throughput) reaches the maximum value. (Example: If the test
iteration with 64 KByte of HTTP response object size reached the
maximum throughput limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be
interrupted and the result for 64 KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds. Continue
the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
MUST meet all validation criteria.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.2.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable connections per second
within the validation criteria.
7.3. HTTP Throughput
7.3.1. Objective
Determine the throughput for HTTP transactions varying the HTTP
response object size.
7.3.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.3.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.3.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.3.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)
Initial Throughput: 10% of "Target Throughput" (an optional parameter
for documentation)
Number of HTTP response object requests (transactions) per
connection: 10
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
RECOMMENDED HTTP response object size: 1 KByte, 16 KByte, 64 KByte,
256 KByte and mixed objects defined in the table
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
| | Weight |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 0.2 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 6 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 8 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 9 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 10 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 25 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 26 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 35 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 59 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 347 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
Table 3: Mixed Objects
7.3.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.
b. Traffic should be forwarded constantly.
c. Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
almost at the same rate
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.3.3.4. Measurement
The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
average Throughput and average HTTP Transactions per Second
7.3.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure HTTP throughput of the DUT/
SUT. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This test
procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
traffic distribution and HTTP response object sizes.
7.3.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"Initial Throughput" as defined in the parameters Section 7.3.3.2.
The traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4. The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial Throughput"
during the sustain phase. Measure all KPI as defined in
Section 7.3.3.4.
The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the validation
criteria "a" defined in Section 7.3.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.3.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds. Continue
the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired "Target Throughput" at
the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
validation criteria.
Perform the test separately for each HTTP response object size.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.3.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
validation criteria. Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.4. TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency
7.4.1. Objective
Using HTTP traffic, determine the average HTTP transaction latency
when DUT is running with sustainable HTTP transactions per second
supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTP response object sizes.
Test iterations MUST be performed with different HTTP response object
sizes in two different scenarios.one with a single transaction and
the other with multiple transactions within a single TCP connection.
For consistency both the single and multiple transaction test MUST be
configured with HTTP 1.1.
Scenario 1: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
connection with FIN immediately after completion of a single
transaction (GET and RESPONSE).
Scenario 2: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
connection FIN immediately after completion of 10 transactions (GET
and RESPONSE) within a single TCP connection.
7.4.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. MUST be documented.
7.4.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.4.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.4.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3 . Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target objective for scenario 1: 50% of the maximum connection per
second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second
(Section 7.2)
Target objective for scenario 2: 50% of the maximum throughput
measured in test scenario HTTP Throughput (Section 7.3)
Initial objective for scenario 1: 10% of Target objective for
scenario 1" (an optional parameter for documentation)
Initial objective for scenario 2: 10% of "Target objective for
scenario 2" (an optional parameter for documentation)
HTTP transaction per TCP connection: test scenario 1 with single
transaction and the second scenario with 10 transactions
HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting a single object. The
RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 16 or 64 KByte. For each test
iteration, client MUST request a single HTTP response object size.
7.4.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.
Generic criteria:
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate.
d. Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
almost at the same rate
e. After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the "Target objective" defined
in the parameter Section 7.4.3.2 and remain in that state for the
entire test duration (sustain phase).
7.4.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
HTTP response object sizes separately:
TTFB (minimum, average and maximum) and TTLB (minimum, average and
maximum)
All KPI's are measured once the target throughput achieves the steady
state.
7.4.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the average application
transaction latencies or TTLB when the DUT is operating close to 50%
of its maximum achievable throughput or connections per second. This
test procedure CAN be repeated multiple times with different IP types
(IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic distribution),
HTTP response object sizes and single and multiple transactions per
connection scenarios.
7.4.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"Initial objective" as defined in the parameters Section 7.4.3.2.
The traffic load profile can be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial objective" before the sustain
phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the
validation criteria a, b, c, d, e and f defined in Section 7.4.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.4.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target objective" defined in
the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic
load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support.
The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be reported,
if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
maximum value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64 KByte of HTTP
response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the result for 64
KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds. Continue
the test until all traffic profile phases are completed. DUT/SUT is
expected to reach the desired "Target objective" at the sustain
phase. In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all validation
criteria.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
7.4.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
validation criteria and measure the latency values.
7.5. Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity
7.5.1. Objective
Determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connections that the
DUT/ SUT sustains when using HTTP traffic.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.5.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.5.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.5.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.5.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
noted for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target concurrent connection: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
Initial concurrent connection: 10% of "Target concurrent
connection" (an optional parameter for documentation)
Maximum connections per second during ramp up phase: 50% of
maximum connections per second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTP
Connections per second (Section 7.2)
Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Target concurrent
connection"): "Target concurrent connection" / "Maximum
connections per second during ramp up phase"
Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Initial concurrent
connection"): "Initial concurrent connection" / "Maximum
connections per second during ramp up phase"
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 with persistence and each client
MAY open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server endpoint IP.
Each client sends 10 GET commands requesting 1 KByte HTTP response
object in the same TCP connection (10 transactions/TCP connection)
and the delay (think time) between the transaction MUST be X seconds.
X = ("Ramp up time" + "steady state time") /10
The established connections SHOULD remain open until the ramp down
phase of the test. During the ramp down phase, all connections
SHOULD be successfully closed with FIN.
7.5.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transaction) of total attempted transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic SHOULD be forwarded constantly
7.5.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metric MUST be reported for this test scenario:
average Concurrent TCP Connections
7.5.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the concurrent TCP
connection capacity of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of
traffic load profile. The test procedure consists of three major
steps. This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with
different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution.
7.5.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Configure test equipment to establish "Initial concurrent TCP
connections" defined in Section 7.5.3.2. Except ramp up time, the
traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial
concurrent TCP connections". The measured KPIs during the sustain
phase MUST meet the validation criteria "a" and "b" defined in
Section 7.5.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.5.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
connections". The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load
profile definition (except ramp up time) as described in
Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, the other KPIs such as
throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
Section 7.5.3.4. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target concurrent
connection at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs must
meet all validation criteria.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
7.5.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
connections capacity within the validation criteria.
7.6. TCP/HTTPS Connections per second
7.6.1. Objective
Using HTTPS traffic, determine the maximum sustainable SSL/TLS
session establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
throughput load conditions.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
MUST include ciphers and keys defined in Section 7.6.3.2.
For each cipher suite and key strengths, test iterations MUST use a
single HTTPS response object size defined in the test equipment
configuration parameters Section 7.6.3.2 to measure connections per
second performance under a variety of DUT Security inspection load
conditions.
7.6.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. MUST be documented.
7.6.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.6.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.6.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Target connections per second: Initial value from product data sheet
(if known)
Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
second" (an optional parameter for documentation)
RECOMMENDED ciphers and keys:
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256r1)
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)
The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection with FIN
immediately after completion of one transaction. In each test
iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTPS
response object size. The RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16,
64 KByte.
7.6.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria:
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate
d. Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
almost at the same rate
7.6.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
average TCP Connections Per Second, average TLS Handshake Rate (TLS
Handshake Rate can be measured in the test scenario using 1KB object
size)
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.6.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections per
second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
profile. The test procedure consists of three major steps. This
test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
IPv6 traffic distribution.
7.6.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"Initial connections per second" as defined in Section 7.6.3.2. The
traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in Section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial connections per second" before
the sustain phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
meet the validation criteria a, b, c, and d defined in
Section 7.6.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.6.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target connections per second"
defined in the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow
the traffic load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
MUST NOT reach the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support. The
test results for specific test iteration SHOULD NOT be reported, if
the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches the maximum
value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64 KByte of HTTPS
response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
DUT, the test iteration can be interrupted and the result for 64
KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds. Continue
the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections per
second rate at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
must meet all validation criteria.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
7.6.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable connections per second
within the validation criteria.
7.7. HTTPS Throughput
7.7.1. Objective
Determine the throughput for HTTPS transactions varying the HTTPS
response object size.
Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
as well as forward looking stronger keys. Specific test iterations
MUST include the ciphers and keys defined in the parameter
Section 7.7.3.2.
7.7.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. must be documented.
7.7.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.7.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.7.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)
Initial Throughput: 10% of "Target Throughput" (an optional parameter
for documentation)
Number of HTTPS response object requests (transactions) per
connection: 10
RECOMMENDED ciphers and keys:
1. ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256r1)
2. ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)
3. ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)
4. ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
Algorithm: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)
RECOMMENDED HTTPS response object size: 1 KByte, 2 KByte, 4 KByte, 16
KByte, 64 KByte, 256 KByte and mixed object defined in the table
below.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
| | Weight |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 0.2 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 6 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 8 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 9 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 10 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 25 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 26 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 35 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 59 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| 347 | 1 |
+---------------------+---------------------+
Table 4: Mixed Objects
7.7.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.
b. Traffic should be forwarded constantly.
c. Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
almost at the same rate
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.7.3.4. Measurement
The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:
average Throughput and average HTTPS Transactions Per Second
7.7.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure consists of three major steps. This test
procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
traffic distribution and HTTPS response object sizes.
7.7.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"initial throughput" as defined in the parameters Section 7.7.3.2.
The traffic load profile should be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4. The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial Throughput"
during the sustain phase. Measure all KPI as defined in
Section 7.7.3.4.
The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the validation
criteria "a" defined in Section 7.7.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.7.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds. Continue
the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired "Target Throughput" at
the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all
validation criteria.
Perform the test separately for each HTTPS response object size.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.7.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
validation criteria. Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.
7.8. HTTPS Transaction Latency
7.8.1. Objective
Using HTTPS traffic, determine the average HTTPS transaction latency
when DUT is running with sustainable HTTPS transactions per second
supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTPS response object size.
Scenario 1: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS and close the connection
with FIN immediately after completion of a single transaction (GET
and RESPONSE).
Scenario 2: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS and close the connection
with FIN immediately after completion of 10 transactions (GET and
RESPONSE) within a single TCP connection.
7.8.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. MUST be documented.
7.8.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.8.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.8.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
RECOMMENDED cipher suites and key size: ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
with Secp521 bits key size (Signature Hash Algorithm:
ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)
Target objective for scenario 1: 50% of the maximum connections per
second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTPS Connections per second
(Section 7.6)
Target objective for scenario 2: 50% of the maximum throughput
measured in test scenario HTTPS Throughput (Section 7.7)
Initial objective for scenario 1: 10% of Target objective for
scenario 1" (an optional parameter for documentation)
Initial objective for scenario 2: 10% of "Target objective for
scenario 2" (an optional parameter for documentation)
HTTPS transaction per TCP connection: test scenario 1 with single
transaction and the second scenario with 10 transactions
HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 KByte
object. For each test iteration, client MUST request a single HTTPS
response object size.
7.8.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile. Ramp up and
ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.
Generic criteria:
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of attempt transactions.
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded at a
constant rate.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
d. Concurrent TCP connections MUST be constant during steady state
and any deviation of concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be less
than 10%. This confirms the DUT opens and closes TCP connections
almost at the same rate
e. After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the "Target objective" defined
in the parameter Section 7.8.3.2 and remain in that state for the
entire test duration (sustain phase).
7.8.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
HTTPS response object sizes separately:
TTFB (minimum, average and maximum) and TTLB (minimum, average and
maximum)
All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
achieves the steady state.
7.8.4. Test Procedures and Expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure average TTFB or TTLB when
the DUT is operating close to 50% of its maximum achievable
connections per second. This test procedure can be repeated multiple
times with different IP types (IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6
mixed traffic distribution), HTTPS response object sizes and single
and multiple transactions per connection scenarios.
7.8.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
"Initial objective" as defined in the parameters Section 7.8.3.2.
The traffic load profile can be defined as described in
Section 4.3.4.
The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial objective" before the sustain
phase. The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the
validation criteria a, b, c, d, e and f defined in Section 7.8.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.8.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target objective" defined in
the parameters table. The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic
load profile definition as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, other KPIs such as throughput,
concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support.
The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be reported,
if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
maximum value. (Example: If the test iteration with 64 KByte of HTTP
response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the result for 64
KByte SHOULD NOT be reported).
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
KPIs. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds. Continue
the test until all traffic profile phases are completed. DUT/SUT is
expected to reach the desired "Target objective" at the sustain
phase. In addition, the measured KPIs MUST meet all validation
criteria.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
7.8.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
validation criteria and measure the latency values.
7.9. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity
7.9.1. Objective
Determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP connections that the
DUT/SUT sustains when using HTTPS traffic.
7.9.2. Test Setup
Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4. Any
specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
and interface type, etc. MUST be documented.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
7.9.3. Test Parameters
In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.
7.9.3.1. DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters
DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
Section 4.2. Any configuration changes for this specific test
scenario MUST be documented.
7.9.3.2. Test Equipment Configuration Parameters
Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
requirements defined in Section 4.3. Following parameters MUST be
documented for this test scenario:
Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2
Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2
Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
Section 4.3.1.2
RECOMMENDED cipher suites and key size: ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-
SHA384 with Secp521 bits key size (Signature Hash Algorithm:
ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)
Target concurrent connections: Initial value from product data
sheet (if known)
Initial concurrent connections: 10% of "Target concurrent
connections" (an optional parameter for documentation)
Connections per second during ramp up phase: 50% of maximum
connections per second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTPS
Connections per second (Section 7.6)
Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Target concurrent
connections"): "Target concurrent connections" / "Maximum
connections per second during ramp up phase"
Ramp up time (in traffic load profile for "Initial concurrent
connections"): "Initial concurrent connections" / "Maximum
connections per second during ramp up phase"
The client MUST perform HTTPS transaction with persistence and each
client can open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server
endpoint IP.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Each client sends 10 GET commands requesting 1 KByte HTTPS response
objects in the same TCP connections (10 transactions/TCP connection)
and the delay (think time) between each transactions MUST be X
seconds.
X = ("Ramp up time" + "steady state time") /10
The established connections SHOULD remain open until the ramp down
phase of the test. During the ramp down phase, all connections
SHOULD be successfully closed with FIN.
7.9.3.3. Test Results Validation Criteria
The following test Criteria is defined as test results validation
criteria. Test results validation criteria MUST be monitored during
the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.
a. Number of failed Application transactions (receiving any HTTP
response code other than 200 OK) MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out
of 100,000 transactions) of total attempted transactions
b. Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.001% (1 out of 100,000
connections) of total initiated TCP connections
c. During the sustain phase, traffic SHOULD be forwarded constantly
7.9.3.4. Measurement
Following KPI metric MUST be reported for this test scenario:
average Concurrent TCP Connections
7.9.4. Test Procedures and expected Results
The test procedure is designed to measure the concurrent TCP
connection capacity of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of
traffic load profile. The test procedure consists of three major
steps. This test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with
different IPv4 and IPv6 traffic distribution.
7.9.4.1. Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification
Verify the link status of all connected physical interfaces. All
interfaces are expected to be in "UP" status.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
Configure test equipment to establish "initial concurrent TCP
connections" defined in Section 7.9.3.2. Except ramp up time, the
traffic load profile SHOULD be defined as described in Section 4.3.4.
During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "Initial
concurrent TCP connections". The measured KPIs during the sustain
phase MUST meet the validation criteria "a" and "b" defined in
Section 7.9.3.3.
If the KPI metrics do not meet the validation criteria, the test
procedure MUST NOT be continued to "Step 2".
7.9.4.2. Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective
Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
connections". The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load
profile definition (except ramp up time) as described in
Section 4.3.4.
During the ramp up and sustain phase, the other KPIs such as
throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
support.
The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
Section 7.9.3.4. The frequency of measurement SHOULD be 2 seconds.
Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.
The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target concurrent
connections at the sustain phase. In addition, the measured KPIs
MUST meet all validation criteria.
Follow step 3, if the KPI metrics do not meet the validation
criteria.
7.9.4.3. Step 3: Test Iteration
Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
connections within the validation criteria.
8. Formal Syntax
9. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
10. Security Considerations
The primary goal of this document is to provide benchmarking
terminology and methodology for next-generation network security
devices. However, readers should be aware that there is some overlap
between performance and security issues. Specifically, the optimal
configuration for network security device performance may not be the
most secure, and vice-versa. The Cipher suites recommended in this
document are just for test purpose only. The Cipher suite
recommendation for a real deployment is outside the scope of this
document.
11. Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements will be added in the future release.
12. Contributors
The authors would like to thank the many people that contributed
their time and knowledge to this effort.
Specifically, to the co-chairs of the NetSecOPEN Test Methodology
working group and the NetSecOPEN Security Effectiveness working group
- Alex Samonte, Aria Eslambolchizadeh, Carsten Rossenhoevel and David
DeSanto.
Additionally, the following people provided input, comments and spent
time reviewing the myriad of drafts. If we have missed anyone the
fault is entirely our own. Thanks to - Amritam Putatunda, Chao Guo,
Chris Chapman, Chris Pearson, Chuck McAuley, David White, Jurrie Van
Den Breekel, Michelle Rhines, Rob Andrews, Samaresh Nair, and Tim
Winters.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
13.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.
[RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
Performance", RFC 2647, DOI 10.17487/RFC2647, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2647>.
[RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
RFC 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3511>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
Appendix A. NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix
A traffic mix for testing performance of next generation firewalls
MUST scale to stress the DUT based on real-world conditions. In
order to achieve this the following MUST be included:
o Clients connecting to multiple different server FQDNs per
application
o Clients loading apps and pages with connections and objects in
specific orders
o Multiple unique certificates for HTTPS/TLS
o A wide variety of different object sizes
o Different URL paths
o Mix of HTTP and HTTPS
A traffic mix for testing performance of next generation firewalls
MUST also facilitate application identification using different
detection methods with and without decryption of the traffic. Such
as:
o HTTP HOST based application detection
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
o HTTPS/TLS Server Name Indication (SNI)
o Certificate Subject Common Name (CN)
The mix MUST be of sufficient complexity and volume to render
differences in individual apps as statistically insignificant. For
example, changes in like to like apps - such as one type of video
service vs. another both consist of larger objects whereas one news
site vs. another both typically have more connections then other apps
because of trackers and embedded advertising content. To achieve
sufficient complexity, a mix MUST have:
o Thousands of URLs each client walks thru
o Hundreds of FQDNs each client connects to
o Hundreds of unique certificates for HTTPS/TLS
o Thousands of different object sizes per client in orders matching
applications
The following is a description of what a popular application in an
enterprise traffic mix contains.
Table 5 lists the FQDNs, number of transactions and bytes transferred
as an example, client interactions with Office 365 Outlook, Word,
Excel, PowerPoint, SharePoint and Skype.
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| Office365 FQDN | Bytes | Transaction |
+============================================================+
| r1.res.office365.com | 14,056,960 | 192 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | 6,731,019 | 22 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | 6,269,492 | 42 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| swx.cdn.skype.com | 6,100,027 | 12 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | 6,036,947 | 41 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| spoprod-a.akamaihd.net | 3,904,250 | 25 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-excel-15.cdn.office.net | 2,767,941 | 16 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| outlook.office365.com | 2,047,301 | 86 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| shellprod.msocdn.com | 1,008,370 | 11 |
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | 932,080 | 25 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| res.delve.office.com | 760,146 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-powerpoint-15.cdn.office.net | 557,604 | 3 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| appsforoffice.microsoft.com | 511,171 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| powerpoint.officeapps.live.com | 471,625 | 14 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| excel.officeapps.live.com | 342,040 | 14 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| s1-officeapps-15.cdn.office.net | 331,343 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| webdir0a.online.lync.com | 66,930 | 15 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| portal.office.com | 13,956 | 1 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| config.edge.skype.com | 6,911 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| clientlog.portal.office.com | 6,608 | 8 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| webdir.online.lync.com | 4,343 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| graph.microsoft.com | 2,289 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| nam.loki.delve.office.com | 1,812 | 5 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| login.microsoftonline.com | 464 | 2 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
| login.windows.net | 232 | 1 |
+---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
Table 5: Office365
Clients MUST connect to multiple server FQDNs in the same order as
real applications. Connections MUST be made when the client is
interacting with the application and MUST NOT first setup up all
connections. Connections SHOULD stay open per client for subsequent
transactions to the same FQDN similar to how a web browser behaves.
Clients MUST use different URL Paths and Object sizes in orders as
they are observed in real Applications. Clients MAY also setup
multiple connections per FQDN to process multiple transactions in a
sequence at the same time. Table 6 has a partial example sequence of
the Office 365 Word application transactions.
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
| FQDN | URL Path | Object |
| | | size |
+===================================================================+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /personal... | 23,132 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | /we/WsaUpload.ashx | 2 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/.../blank.js | 454 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/.../ | 23,254 |
| | initstrings.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/.../init.js | 292,740 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /ScriptResource... | 102,774 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /ScriptResource... | 40,329 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| company1-my.sharepoint.com | /WebResource... | 23,063 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | /we/wordeditorframe. | 60,657 |
| | aspx... | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| static.sharepointonline.com | /bld/_layouts/.../ | 454 |
| | blank.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 19,201 |
| | EditSurface.css | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 221,397 |
| | WordEditor.css | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-officeapps-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 107,571 |
| | Microsoft | |
| | Ajax.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 39,981 |
| | wacbootwe.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-officeapps-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 51,749 |
| | CommonIntl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 6,050 |
| | Compat.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 54,158 |
| | Box4Intl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 24,946 |
| | WoncaIntl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 53,515 |
| | WordEditorIntl.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../ | 1,978,712|
| | WordEditorExp.js | |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net | /we/s/.../jSanity.js | 10,912 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
| word-edit.officeapps.live.com | /we/OneNote.ashx | 145,708 |
+---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
Table 6: Office365 Word Transactions
For application identification the HTTPS/TLS traffic MUST include
realistic Certificate Subject Common Name (CN) data as well as Server
Name Indications (SNI). For example, a DUT MAY detect Facebook Chat
traffic by inspecting the certificate and detecting *.facebook.com in
the certificate subject CN and subsequently detect the word chat in
the FQDN 5-edge-chat.facebook.com and identify traffic on the
connection to be Facebook Chat.
Table 7 includes further examples in SNI and CN pairs for several
FQDNs of Office 365.
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|Server Name Indication (SNI) | Certificate Subject |
| | Common Name (CN) |
+=================================================================+
| r1.res.office365.com | *.res.outlook.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| login.windows.net | graph.windows.net |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| webdir0a.online.lync.com | *.online.lync.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| login.microsoftonline.com | stamp2.login.microsoftonline.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| webdir.online.lync.com | *.online.lync.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| graph.microsoft.com | graph.microsoft.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| outlook.office365.com | outlook.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| appsforoffice.microsoft.com | appsforoffice.microsoft.com |
+------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Table 7: Office365 SNI and CN Pairs Examples
NetSecOPEN has provided a reference enterprise perimeter traffic mix
with dozens of applications, hundreds of connections, and thousands
of transactions.
The enterprise perimeter traffic mix consists of 70% HTTPS and 30%
HTTP by Bytes, 58% HTTPS and 42% HTTP by Transactions. By
connections with a single connection per FQDN the mix consists of 43%
HTTPS and 57% HTTP. With multiple connections per FQDN the HTTPS
percentage is higher.
Table 8 is a summary of the NetSecOPEN enterprise perimeter traffic
mix sorted by bytes with unique FQDNs and transactions per
applications.
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Application | FQDNs | Transactions | Bytes |
+=======================================================+
| Office365 | 26 | 558 | 52,931,947 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Box | 4 | 90 | 23,276,089 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Salesforce | 6 | 365 | 23,137,548 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Gmail | 13 | 139 | 16,399,289 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
| Linkedin | 10 | 206 | 15,040,918 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| DailyMotion | 8 | 77 | 14,751,514 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| GoogleDocs | 2 | 71 | 14,205,476 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Wikia | 15 | 159 | 13,909,777 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Foxnews | 82 | 499 | 13,758,899 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Yahoo Finance | 33 | 254 | 13,134,011 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Youtube | 8 | 97 | 13,056,216 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Facebook | 4 | 207 | 12,726,231 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| CNBC | 77 | 275 | 11,939,566 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Lightreading | 27 | 304 | 11,200,864 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BusinessInsider | 16 | 142 | 11,001,575 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Alexa | 5 | 153 | 10,475,151 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| CNN | 41 | 206 | 10,423,740 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Twitter Video | 2 | 72 | 10,112,820 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Cisco Webex | 1 | 213 | 9,988,417 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Slack | 3 | 40 | 9,938,686 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Google Maps | 5 | 191 | 8,771,873 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| SpectrumIEEE | 7 | 145 | 8,682,629 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Yelp | 9 | 146 | 8,607,645 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Vimeo | 12 | 74 | 8,555,960 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Wikihow | 11 | 140 | 8,042,314 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Netflix | 3 | 31 | 7,839,256 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Instagram | 3 | 114 | 7,230,883 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Morningstar | 30 | 150 | 7,220,121 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
| Docusign | 5 | 68 | 6,972,738 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Twitter | 1 | 100 | 6,939,150 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Tumblr | 11 | 70 | 6,877,200 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Whatsapp | 3 | 46 | 6,829,848 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Imdb | 16 | 251 | 6,505,227 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NOAAgov | 1 | 44 | 6,316,283 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| IndustryWeek | 23 | 192 | 6,242,403 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Spotify | 18 | 119 | 6,231,013 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| AutoNews | 16 | 165 | 6,115,354 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Evernote | 3 | 47 | 6,063,168 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NatGeo | 34 | 104 | 6,026,344 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BBC News | 18 | 156 | 5,898,572 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Investopedia | 38 | 241 | 5,792,038 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Pinterest | 8 | 102 | 5,658,994 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Succesfactors | 2 | 112 | 5,049,001 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| AbaJournal | 6 | 93 | 4,985,626 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Pbworks | 4 | 78 | 4,670,980 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NetworkWorld | 42 | 153 | 4,651,354 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| WebMD | 24 | 280 | 4,416,736 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| OilGasJournal | 14 | 105 | 4,095,255 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Trello | 5 | 39 | 4,080,182 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BusinessWire | 5 | 109 | 4,055,331 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Dropbox | 5 | 17 | 4,023,469 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Nejm | 20 | 190 | 4,003,657 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
| OilGasDaily | 7 | 199 | 3,970,498 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Chase | 6 | 52 | 3,719,232 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| MedicalNews | 6 | 117 | 3,634,187 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Marketwatch | 25 | 142 | 3,291,226 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Imgur | 5 | 48 | 3,189,919 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| NPR | 9 | 83 | 3,184,303 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Onelogin | 2 | 31 | 3,132,707 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Concur | 2 | 50 | 3,066,326 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Service-now | 1 | 37 | 2,985,329 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Apple itunes | 14 | 80 | 2,843,744 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BerkeleyEdu | 3 | 69 | 2,622,009 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| MSN | 39 | 203 | 2,532,972 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Indeed | 3 | 47 | 2,325,197 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| MayoClinic | 6 | 56 | 2,269,085 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Ebay | 9 | 164 | 2,219,223 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| UCLAedu | 3 | 42 | 1,991,311 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| ConstructionDive | 5 | 125 | 1,828,428 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| EducationNews | 4 | 78 | 1,605,427 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| BofA | 12 | 68 | 1,584,851 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| ScienceDirect | 7 | 26 | 1,463,951 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Reddit | 8 | 55 | 1,441,909 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| FoodBusinessNews | 5 | 49 | 1,378,298 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Amex | 8 | 42 | 1,270,696 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Weather | 4 | 50 | 1,243,826 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking for NGFW performance March 2020
| Wikipedia | 3 | 27 | 958,935 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Bing | 1 | 52 | 697,514 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| ADP | 1 | 30 | 508,654 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| | | | |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
| Grand Total | 983 | 10021 | 569,819,095 |
+------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
Table 8: Summary of NetSecOPEN Enterprise Perimeter Traffic Mix
Authors' Addresses
Balamuhunthan Balarajah
Email: bm.balarajah@gmail.com
Carsten Rossenhoevel
EANTC AG
Salzufer 14
Berlin 10587
Germany
Email: cross@eantc.de
Brian Monkman
NetSecOPEN
417 Independence Court
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
USA
Email: bmonkman@netsecopen.org
Balarajah, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 58]