[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 03

Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                      B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft                                           C. Rossenhoevel
Intended status: Informational                                  EANTC AG
Expires: September 23, 2018                               March 22, 2018


    Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
                draft-balarajah-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.  The
   document aims to strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility
   and transparency of benchmarks and to align the test methodology with
   today's increasingly complex layer 7 application use cases.  The main
   areas covered in this document are test terminology, traffic profiles
   and benchmarking methodology for NGFWs to start with.

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 23, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  DUT/SUT Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Test Equipment Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  Client Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.2.  Backend Server Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.3.  Traffic Flow Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.4.  Traffic Load Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Test Bed Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  Key Performance Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Benchmarking Tests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Throughput Performance With NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix  . . .  16
       7.1.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.1.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.1.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.1.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity With HTTP Traffic  . .  20
       7.2.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.2.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.2.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.2.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . .  22
     7.3.  TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.3.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.3.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  25
     7.4.  HTTP Transactions Per Second  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.4.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.5.  HTTP Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.5.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     7.6.  HTTP Transaction Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.6.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     7.7.  Concurrent SSL/TLS Connection Capacity  . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.7.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     7.8.  SSL/TLS Handshake Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.8.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.8.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


       7.8.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       7.8.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . .  30
     7.9.  HTTPS Transaction  Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       7.9.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     7.10. HTTPS Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       7.10.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     7.11. HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       7.11.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   8.  Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   12. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix A.  NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

1.  Introduction

   15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially (RFC 2647, RFC 3511).  The
   requirements for network security element performance and
   effectiveness have increased tremendously since then.  Security
   function implementations have evolved to more advanced areas and have
   diversified into intrusion detection and prevention, threat
   management, analysis of encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of
   growing importance, well-defined and reproducible key performance
   indicators (KPIs) are increasingly needed: They enable fair and
   reasonable comparison of network security functions.  All these
   reasons have led to the creation of a new next-generation firewall
   benchmarking document.

2.  Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .

3.  Scope

   This document provides testing terminology and testing methodology
   next-generation firewalls and related security functions.  It covers
   two main areas: Performance benchmarks and security effectiveness
   testing.  The document focuses on advanced, realistic, and
   reproducible testing methods.  Additionally it describes test bed
   environments, test tool requirements and test result formats.






Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


4.  Test Setup

   Test setup defined in this document will be applicable to all of the
   benchmarking test cases 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 to avoid external devices such as switch and
   router in the testbed as possible.

   In the typical deployment, the security devices (DUT/SUT) will not
   have a large number of entries in MAC or ARP tables, which impact the
   actual DUT/SUT performance due to MAC and ARP table lookup processes.
   Therefore, depend on number of used IP address in client and server
   side, it is recommended to connect Layer 3 device(s) between test
   equipment and DUT/SUT as shown in Figure 1.

   If the test equipment is capable to emulate layer 3 routing
   functionality and there is no need for test equipment ports
   aggregation, it is recommended to configure the test setup as shown
   in Figure 2.

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

                    Figure 1: Testbed Setup - Option 1



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


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

                    Figure 2: Testbed Setup - Option 2

4.2.  DUT/SUT Configuration

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

   This document attempts to define the recommended security features
   which SHOULD be consistently enabled for all test cases.  The table
   below describes the recommended sets of feature list which SHOULD be
   configured on the DUT/SUT.  In order to improve repeatability, a
   summary of the DUT configuration including description of all enabled
   DUT/SUT features MUST be published with the benchmarking results.




















Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


                  +----------------------------------------------------+
                  |                         Device                     |
                  +---------------------------------+---+---+---+------+
                  |                           |     |   |   |   | SSL  |
                  |             NGFW          |NGIPS|ADC|WAF|BPS|Broker|
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |              |       |Included  |Added to| Future test standards  |
   |DUT Features  |Feature|in initial|future  | to be developed        |
   |              |       |Scope     |Scope   |                        |
   +------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+------+
   |SSL Inspection|   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IDS/IPS       |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Web Filtering |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Antivirus     |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Anti Spyware  |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Anti Botnet   |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |DLP           |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |DDoS          |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Certificate   |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   |Validation    |       |          |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Logging and   |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   |Reporting     |       |          |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application   |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   |Identification|       |          |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +----------------------+----------+--------+-----+---+---+---+------+

                       Table 1: DUT/SUT Feature List

   In addition, it is also recommended to configure a realistic number
   of access policy rules on the DUT/SUT.  This document determines the
   number of access policy rules for three different class of DUT/SUT.
   The classification of the DUT/SUT MAY be based on its maximum
   supported throughput performance number.  This document classifies
   the DUT/SUT in three different categories; namely small, medium and
   maximum.

   The recommended throughput values for the following classes are;




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   Small - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s

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

   Large - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s

   The access rule defined in the table 2 MUST be configured from top to
   bottom in correct order.  The configured access policy rule MUST NOT
   block the test traffic used for the benchmarking test scenario.









































Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


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

                       Table 2: DUT/SUT Access List

4.3.  Test Equipment Configuration

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



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   This document attempts to explicitly specify which test equipment
   parameters SHOULD be configurable, any such parameter(s) MUST be
   noted in the test report.

4.3.1.  Client Configuration

   This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considerable while
   configuring emulated clients using test equipment.  Also this section
   specifies the recommended values for certain parameters.

4.3.1.1.  TCP Stack Attributes

   The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion
   avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on
   every TCP connection between client and server endpoints.  The
   default IPv4 and IPv6 MSS segments size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and
   1440 bytes and a TX and RX receive windows of 32768 bytes.  Delayed
   ACKs are permitted, but it SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec
   delay timeout or 3000 in bytes before a forced ACK.  Up to 3 retries
   SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is declared.  All traffic
   MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high.  The source port range SHOULD be
   in the range of 1024 - 65535.  Internal timeout SHOULD be dynamically
   scalable per RFC 793.

4.3.1.2.  Client IP Address Space

   The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following
   attributes.  The traffic blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique,
   continuous static address blocks.  A default gateway is permitted.
   The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'.

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

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

   (Idea 1)  6-7 Mbps per IP= 1,400-1,700 IPs per 10Gbit/s throughput

   (Idea 2)  0.1-0.2 Mbps per IP = 50,000-100,000 IPs per 10Gbit/s
             throughput

   Based on deployment and usecase scenario, client IP addresses SHOULD
   be distributed between IPv4 and IPv6 type.  This document recommends
   using the following ratio(s) between IPv4 and IPv6:

   (Idea 1)  100 % IPv4, no IPv6




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   (Idea 2)  80 % IPv4, 20 % IPv6

   (Idea 3)  50 % IPv4, 50 % IPv6

   (Idea 4)  0 % IPv4, 100 % IPv6

4.3.1.3.  Emulated Web Browser Attributes

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

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

   For encrypted traffic, the following attributes shall define the
   negotiated encryption parameters.  The tests must use TLSv1.2 or
   higher with a record size of 16383, commonly used cipher suite and
   key strength.  Session reuse or ticket resumption may be used for
   subsequent connections to the same Server endpoint IP.  The client
   endpoint must send TLS Extension SNI information when opening up a
   security tunnel.  Server certificate validation should be disabled.
   Server certificate validation should be disabled.  Cipher suite and
   certificate size should be defined in the parameter session of
   benchmarking tests.

4.3.2.  Backend Server Configuration

   This document attempts to specify which parameters should be
   considerable while configuring emulated backend servers using test
   equipment.

4.3.2.1.  TCP Stack Attributes

   The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion
   avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on
   every TCP connection between client and server endpoints.  The
   default IPv4 MSS segment size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and a TX and
   RX receive windows of at least 32768 bytes.  Delayed ACKs are
   permitted but SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec delay timeout or
   3000 in bytes before a forced ACK.  Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed
   before a timeout event is declared.  All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   flag to high.  The source port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 -
   65535.  Internal timeout should be dynamically scalable per RFC 793.

4.3.2.2.  Server Endpoint IP Addressing

   The server IP blocks should consist of unique, continuous static
   address blocks with one IP per Server FQDN endpoint per test port.
   The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'.  The source mac address of
   the server endpoints shall be the same emulating routed behavior.
   Each Server FQDN should have it's own unique IP address.  The Server
   IP addressing should be fixed to the same number of FQDN entries.

4.3.2.3.  HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes

   The emulated server pool for HTTP should listen on TCP port 80 and
   emulated HTTP version 1.1 with persistence.  For HTTPS server, the
   pool must have the same basic attributes of an HTTP server pool plus
   attributes for SSL/TLS.  The server must advertise a server type.
   For HTTPS server, TLS 1.2 or higher must be used with a record size
   of 16383 bytes and ticket resumption or Session ID reuse enabled.
   The server must listen on port TCP 443.  The server shall serve a
   certificate to the client.  It is required that the HTTPS server also
   check Host SNI information with the Fully Qualified Domain Name
   (FQDN).  Client certificate validation should be disabled.  Cipher
   suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session
   of benchmarking tests.

4.3.3.  Traffic Flow Definition

   The section describes the traffic pattern between the client and
   server endpoints.  At the beginning of the test, the server endpoint
   initializes and will be in a ready to accept connection state
   including initialization of the TCP stack as well as bound HTTP and
   HTTPS servers.  When a client endpoint is needed, it will initialize
   and be given attributes such as the MAC and IP address.  The behavior
   of the client is to sweep though the given server IP space,
   sequentially generating a recognizable service by the DUT.  Thus, a
   balanced, mesh between client endpoints and server endpoints will be
   generated in a client port server port combination.  Each client
   endpoint performs the same actions as other endpoints, with the
   difference being the source IP of the client endpoint and the target
   server IP pool.  The client shall use Fully Qualified Domain Names in
   Host Headers and for TLS 1.2 Server Name Indication (SNI).








Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


4.3.3.1.  Description of Intra-Client Behavior

   Client endpoints are independent of other clients that are
   concurrently executing.  When a client endpoint initiate traffic,
   this section will describe how the steps though different services.
   Once initialized, the user should randomly hold (perform no
   operation) for a few milliseconds to allow for better randomization
   of start of client traffic.  The client will then either open up a
   new TCP connection or connect to a TCP persistence stack still open
   to that specific server.  At any point that the service profile may
   require encryption, a TLS 1.2 encryption tunnel will form presenting
   the URL request to the server.  The server will then perform an SNI
   name check with the proposed FQDN compared to the domain embedded in
   the certificate.  Only when correct, will the server process the
   object.  The initial object to the server may not have a fixed size;
   its size is based on benchmarking tests described in Section 7.
   Multiple additional sub-URLs (Objects on the service page) may be
   requested simultaneously.  This may or may not be to the same server
   IP as the initial URL.  Each sub-object will also use a conical FQDN
   and URL path, as observed in the traffic mix used.

4.3.4.  Traffic Load Profile

   The loading of traffic will be described in this section.  The
   loading of an traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init,
   ramp up, sustain, ramp down/close, and collection.

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

   In the ramp up phase, the test equipment should start to generate the
   test traffic.  It should use a set approximate number of unique
   client IP addresses actively to generate traffic.  The traffic should
   ramp from zero to desired target objective.  The target objective
   will be defined for each benchmarking test.  The duration for the
   ramp up phase must be configured long enough, so that the test
   equipment do not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported performance metrics
   namely; connection setup rate, concurrent connection and application
   transaction.  The recommended time duration for the ramp up phase is
   180- 300 seconds.  No measurements are made in this phase.




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   In the sustain phase, the test equipment should keep to generate
   traffic t constant target value for a constant number of active
   client IPs.  The recommended time duration for sustain phase is 600
   seconds.  This is the phase where measurements occur.

   In the ramp down/close phase, no new connection is established and no
   measurements are made.  The recommend duration of this phase is
   between 180 to 300 seconds.

   The last phase is administrative and will be when the tester merges
   and collates the report data.

5.  Test Bed Considerations

   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
       whole test session.  A number of factors might influence
       stability specifically for virtualized test beds, for example
       additional work loads 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 desired traffic
   generator aspects such as maximum throughput and the network
   performance metrics such as maximum latency and maximum packet loss
   are met.

   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 & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


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

           +  iThe 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

           +  Specific features, such as logging, NGFW, DPI must be
              documented

           +  iAttributes of those featured must be documented

           +  Any additional relevant information about features must be
              documented



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


       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 detains 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 in whole period of sustain phase as
   described in Section 4.3.4.  All KPIs MUST be measured from test
   equipment's result output.

   o  TCP Concurrent Connection
      This key performance indicator will measure the average concurrent
      open TCP connections in the sustaining period.

   o  TCP Connection Setup Rate
      This key performance indicator will measure the average
      established TCP connections per second in the sustaining period.
      For Session setup rate benchmarking test scenario, the KPI will
      measure average established and terminated TCP connections per
      second simultaneously.

   o  Application Transaction Rate
      This key performance indicator will measure the average successful
      transactions per seconds in the sustaining period.



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   o  TLS Handshake Rate
      This key performance indicator will measure the average TLS 1.2 or
      higher session formation rate within the sustaining period.

   o  Throughput
      This key performance indicator will measure the average Layer 1
      throughput within the sustaining period as well as average packets
      per seconds within the same period.  The value of throughput
      should be presented in Gbps rounded to two places of precision
      with a more specific kbps 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 will measure the minimum, average
      and maximum per URL response time in the sustaining period as well
      as the average variance in the same period.

   o  Application Transaction Time
      This key performance indicator will measure the minimum, average
      and maximum the amount of time to receive all objects 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.

   o  TCP Connect Time
      This key performance indicator will measure minimum, average and
      maximum TCP connect time.  It is elapsed between the time the
      client sends a SYN packet and the time it receives the SYN/ACK.
      TCP connect time 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)





Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


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

      Server IP address range

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6

      Traffic load objective or specification type (e.g.  Throughput,
      SimUsers and etc.)

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

      Initial throughput: Initial throughput MAY be up to 10% of the
      "Target throughput"

7.1.3.3.  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 Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   a.  Number of failed Application transaction MUST be 0.01%.

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01%

   c.  Maximum deviation (max. dev) of application transaction time /
       TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST be less than X (The value for "X"
       will be finalyzed and updated in future draft release)
       The following equation MUST be used to calculate the deviation of
       application transaction 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 application transaction time or
       TTLB.

       Initial latency:= min((avg' latency - min' latency) | (max'
       latency - avg' latency))

   d.  Maximum value of TCP connect time must be less than Xms (The
       value for "X" will be finalyzed and updated in future draft
       release).  The definition for TCP connect time is found in
       Section 6.1.

   e.  Maximum value of Time to First Byte must be less than 2* TCP
       connect time.

   Test Acceptance criteria for this test scenario MUST be monitored
   during the sustain phase of the traffic load profile only.

7.1.3.5.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   Mandatory KPIs: average Throughput, maximum Concurrent TCP
   connection, TTLB/application transaction time (minimum, average and
   maximum) and average application transaction rate

   Optional KPIs: average TCP connection setup rate, average TLS
   handshake rate, TCP connect time and TTFB






Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.1.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results

   The test procedure is 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 "UP" status.

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to generate test
   traffic at "initial throughput" rate as described in the parameters
   section.  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 acceptance
   criteria "a" and "b" defined in Section 7.1.3.4.

   If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance 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 "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 metrics measurement MUST be
   less than 5 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
   acceptance criteria.  Follow the step 3, if the KPI metrics do not
   meet the acceptance criteria.

7.1.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration with Binary Search

   Use binary search algorithm to configure the desired traffic load
   profile for each test iteration.  Binary search algorithmn can be
   implemented using the parameter; Resolution =0.01* Target throughput
   and Backoff= 50%.

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   acceptance criteria.






Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.2.  Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity With HTTP Traffic

7.2.1.  Objective

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

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
   noted for this test scenario:

      Client IP address range

      Server IP address range

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6

      Traffic load objective or specification type (e.g Throughput,
      SimUsers and etc.)

      Target concurrent connection: It can be defined based on
      requirements

      Initial concurrent connection: 10% of "Target concurrent
      connection"








Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.2.3.2.1.  Client Configuration Parameters

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

   Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
   following attributes:

   HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting 10 Kbyte objects with random
   MIME type.

   The test equipment SHOULD perform HTTP transactions within each TCP
   connection subsequently.  The frequency of transactions MUST be
   defined to achieve X% of total throughput that DUT can support.  The
   suggested value of X is 25.  It will be finalyzed and updated in the
   next draft version.

   During the sustain state of concurrent connection and traffic load ,
   a minimal % of TCP connection SHOULD be closed and re-opened.

7.2.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria

   a.  Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
       of attempt transaction.

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
       sessions.

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded constantly
       at the rate defined in the parameter Section 7.2.3.

   d.  Maximum deviation (max. dev) of application transaction time /
       TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST be less than Xms (The value for "X"
       will be finalyzed and updated in future draft release).
       The following equation MUST be used to calculate the deviation of
       application transaction 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.



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


       The variable latency represents application transaction time or
       TTLB.

       Initial latency:= min((avg' latency - min' latency) | (max'
       latency - avg' latency))

   e.  Maximum value of TCP connect time must be less than Xms (The
       value for "X" will be finalyzed and updated in future draft
       release).  The definition for TCP connect time is found in
       Section 6.1.

   f.  Maximum value of Time to First Byte must be less than 2* TCP
       connect time.

   Test Acceptance criteria for this test scenario MUST be monitored
   during the sustain phase of the traffic load profile only.

7.2.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario;

   average Throughput, max.  Min. Avg. Concurrent TCP connection, TTLB/
   application transaction time (minimum, average and maximum) and
   average application transaction rate.

7.2.4.  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.

7.2.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

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

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "initial concurrent connection" as defined in the parameters section.
   The traffic load profile should be defined as described in
   Section 4.3.4.

   The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial concurrent connection" during
   the sustain phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
   meet the acceptance criteria "a" and "b" defined in Section 7.2.3.3





Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   If the KPI metrics do not meet the acceptance 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 concurrent connection"
   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, the other KPIs such as
   throughput, TCP connection rate and application transaction MUST NOT
   reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can support.  Throughput,
   TCP connection rate and application transaction should not be reached
   more than X% of maximum value that DUT can support.  The suggested
   value of X is 25.  It will be finalyzed and updated in the next draft
   version.

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 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 acceptance criteria.

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

7.2.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration with Binary Search

   Use binary search algorithm to configure the desired traffic load
   profile for each test iteration.  Binary search algorithmn can be
   implemented using the parameter; Resolution =0.01* "Target concurrent
   connection" and Backoff= 50%.

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   acceptance criteria.

7.3.  TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second

7.3.1.  Objective

   Using HTTP traffic, determine the maximum and average value of TCP
   session establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


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 the
   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 the section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST
   be documented for this test scenario:

   - Client IP address range

   - Server IP address range

   - Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6

   - Target connections per second

   - Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
   second"

7.3.3.2.1.  Client Configuration Parameters'

   Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
   following attributes:

   The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connection
   immediately after completion of the transaction.

   HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 Kbyte
   object.








Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.3.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.

   a.  Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
       of attempt transaction.

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
       sessions

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

   d.  During the sustain phase, Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be
       constant and not increase more than 10%.

   e.  Concurrent TCP connection should be constant during steady state.
       This confirms the DUT opens and closes the session at the same
       rate.

7.3.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   Mandatory KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average
   Throughput and Average Time to TCP First Byte.

7.3.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connection 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.

7.3.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

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

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





Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial connections per second" before
   the sustain phase.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST
   meet the acceptance criteria a, b, c and d defined in section
   7.3.3.3.

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

7.3.4.2.  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 the section
   4.3.4.

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

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
   Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

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

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

7.3.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration with Binary Search

   Use binary search algorithm to configure the desired traffic load
   profile for each test iteration.  Binary search algorithmn can be
   implemented using the parameter; Resolution =0.01* " Target
   connections per second " and Backoff= 50%.

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

7.4.  HTTP Transactions Per Second

7.4.1.  Objective

   Determine maximum and average HTTP transacton rate supported by the
   DUT/SUT.





Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

7.5.  HTTP Throughput

7.5.1.  Objective

   Determine the average throughput performance of the DUT/SUT when
   using HTTP traffic.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

7.6.  HTTP Transaction Latency

7.6.1.  Objective

   Determine the minimum, average and maximum values of HTTP transaction
   latency at 80% throughput rate measured in "HTTP Throughput" test
   scenario.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

7.7.  Concurrent SSL/TLS Connection Capacity

7.7.1.  Objective

   Usin encrypted traffic (HTTPS), determine the maximum number of
   concurrent TCP connection that DUT/SUT sustains.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

7.8.  SSL/TLS Handshake Rate

7.8.1.  Objective

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

   Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
   as well as forward looking stronger keys.  Specific test iterations
   MUST include the following ciphers and keys:

   1.  ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   2.  ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048

   3.  ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp384

   4.  ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 3072

   For each cipher suite and key strengths, test iterations MUST use a
   single HTTP transaction object size of 1KB, 16KB and 64KB to measure
   connections per second performance under a variety of DUT Security
   inspection load conditions.

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 the
   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 the section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST
   be documented for this test scenario:

   - Client IP address range

   - Server IP address range

   - Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6

   - Target connections per second

   - Initial connections per second: 10% of "Target connections per
   second"








Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.8.3.2.1.  Client Configuration Parameters'

   Test scenario SHOULD be run with a single traffic profile with
   following attributes:

   The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection
   immediately after completion of the transaction.

   HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 and 64 Kbyte
   object.

   Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
   certificate and MUST NOT use session reuse or resumption.

   TLS record size MAY be optimized for the object size up to a record
   size of 16K.

7.8.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.

   a.  Number of failed Application transaction MUST be less than 0.01%
       of attempt transaction.

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be less than 0.01% of total initiated TCP
       sessions.

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

   d.  During the sustain phase, Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be
       constant and not increase more than 10%.

   e.  Concurrent TCP connection should be constant during steady state.
       This confirms the DUT opens and closes the session at the same
       rate.

7.8.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   Mandatory KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average
   Throughput and Average Time to TCP First Byte.






Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.8.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connection 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.

7.8.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

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

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "initial connections per second" as defined in the parameters
   section.  The traffic load profile CAN be defined as described in the
   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 acceptance criteria a, b, c and d defined in section
   7.8.3.3.

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

7.8.4.2.  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 the section
   4.3.4.

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

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5 seconds.
   Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are completed.

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

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




Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


7.8.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration with Binary Search

   Use binary search algorithm to configure the desired traffic load
   profile for each test iteration.  Binary search algorithmn can be
   implemented using the parameter; Resolution =0.01* " Target
   connections per second " and Backoff= 50%.

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

7.9.  HTTPS Transaction Per Second

7.9.1.  Objective

   Determine maximum and average HTTPS transacton rate supported by the
   DUT/SUT.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

7.10.  HTTPS Throughput

7.10.1.  Objective

   Determine the average throughput performance of the DUT/SUT when
   using HTTPS traffic.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

7.11.  HTTPS Transaction Latency

7.11.1.  Objective

   Determine the minimum, average and maximum values of HTTPS
   transaction latency at 80% throughput rate measured in "HTTPS
   Throughput" test scenario.

   Test parameters and test test procedures will be added in the future
   release.

8.  Formal Syntax

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.





Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


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

10.  Security Considerations

   Security consideration will be added in the future release.

11.  Acknowledgements

   Acknowledgements will be added in the future release.

12.  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>.

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 facility application identification using different
   detection methods with and without decryption of the traffic.  Such
   as:

   o  HTTP HOST based application detection

   o  HTTPS/TLS Server Name Indication (SNI)

   o  Certificate Subject Common Name (CN)



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   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 3 lists the FQDNs, number of transactions and bytes transferred
   as an example client interacts 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          |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | word-edit.officeapps.live.com   | 932,080    | 25          |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | res.delve.office.com            | 760,146    | 2           |



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | 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 3: 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 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 4 has a partial example sequence of
   the Office 365 Word application transactions.

   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | FQDN                            | URL Path             | Object   |
   |                                 |                      | size     |
   +===================================================================+
   | company1-my.sharepoint.com      | /personal...         | 23,132   |



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | 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          |          |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net  | /we/s/.../           | 24,946   |
   |                                 | WoncaIntl.js         |          |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net  | /we/s/.../           | 53,515   |



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   |                                 | 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 4: 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.  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 5 includes further examples in SNI and CN pairs for several
   FQDNs of Office 365.

   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   |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 5: Office365 SNI and CN Pairs Examples






Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   NetSecOPEN has provided a reference enterprise perimeter traffic mix
   with dozens of applications, hundreds of connections, and thousands
   of transactions. (link to spreadsheet with details)

   NetSecOPEN has provided a reference enterprise perimeter traffic mix
   with dozens of applications, hundreds of connections, and thousands
   of transactions. (link to spreadsheet with details)

   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 6 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  |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | 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  |



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | 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   |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | 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   |



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | 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   |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | 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   |



Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 39]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | 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   |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | Wikipedia        | 3     | 27           | 958,935     |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | Bing             | 1     | 52           | 697,514     |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | ADP              | 1     | 30           | 508,654     |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   |                  |       |              |             |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | Grand Total      | 983   | 10021        | 569,819,095 |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+

      Table 6: Summary of NetSecOPEN Enterprise Perimeter Traffic Mix

Authors' Addresses








Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 40]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance         March 2018


   Balamuhunthan Balarajah
   EANTC AG
   Salzufer 14
   Berlin  10587
   Germany

   Email: balarajah@eantc.de


   Carsten Rossenhoevel
   EANTC AG
   Salzufer 14
   Berlin  10587
   Germany

   Email: cross@eantc.de



































Balarajah & RossenhoeveExpires September 23, 2018              [Page 41]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/