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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                      B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft                                           C. Rossenhoevel
Intended status: Informational                                  EANTC AG
Expires: April 17, 2019                                 October 14, 2018


    Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
                draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05

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 April 17, 2019.

Copyright Notice

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

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



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   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  . . .  17
       7.1.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.1.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.1.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       7.1.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . .  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  . . . . . . . .  21
     7.3.  HTTP Transaction per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       7.3.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  24
     7.4.  TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.4.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.4.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.4.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.4.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  28
     7.5.  HTTP Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       7.5.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       7.5.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       7.5.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       7.5.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  32
     7.6.  Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity . . . . . . . . .  33



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


       7.6.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       7.6.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       7.6.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       7.6.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . .  34
     7.7.  TCP/HTTPS Connections per second  . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       7.7.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       7.7.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       7.7.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
       7.7.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results  . . . . . . . .  38
     7.8.  HTTPS Transaction per Second  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       7.8.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       7.8.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       7.8.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       7.8.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  42
     7.9.  HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.9.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.9.2.  Test Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.9.3.  Test Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       7.9.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results  . . . . . . . .  45
     7.10. HTTPS Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       7.10.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       7.10.2.  Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
       7.10.3.  Test Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
       7.10.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . .  49
     7.11. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity  . . . . . . . .  50
       7.11.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
       7.11.2.  Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
       7.11.3.  Test Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
       7.11.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results . . . . . . . .  52
   8.  Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   Appendix A.  NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  63

1.  Introduction

   15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC2647], [RFC3511]).  The
   requirements for network security element performance and
   effectiveness have increased tremendously since then.  Security
   function implementations have evolved to more advanced areas and have
   diversified into intrusion detection and prevention, threat
   management, analysis of encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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

4.  Test Setup

   Test setup defined in this document is applicable to all benchmarking
   test scenarios described in Section 7.

4.1.  Testbed Configuration

   Testbed configuration MUST ensure that any performance implications
   that are discovered during the benchmark testing aren't due to the
   inherent physical network limitations such as number of physical
   links and forwarding performance capabilities (throughput and
   latency) of the network devise in the testbed.  For this reason, this
   document recommends avoiding external devices such as switch and
   router in the testbed as possible.

   However, in the typical deployment, the security devices (DUT/SUT)
   are connected to routers and switches which will reduce the number of
   entries in MAC or ARP tables of the DUT/SUT.  If MAC or ARP tables
   have many entries, this may impact the actual DUT/SUT performance due
   to MAC and ARP/ND table lookup processes.  Therefore, it is
   RECOMMENDED to connect 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.



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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

                    Figure 1: Testbed Setup - Option 1

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

                    Figure 2: Testbed Setup - Option 2

4.2.  DUT/SUT Configuration

   A unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all benchmarking
   tests described in Section 7.  Since each DUT/SUT will have their own
   unique configuration, testers SHOULD configure their device with the
   same parameters that would be used in the actual deployment of the
   device or a typical deployment.  Users MUST enable security features
   on the DUT/SUT 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 the benchmarking tests



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   described in Section 7.  The table 1 below describes the RECOMMENDED
   sets of feature list which SHOULD be configured on the DUT/SUT.

   Based on customer use case, user can take a decision to enable or
   disable SSL inspection feature for "Throughput Performance with
   NetSecOPEN Traffic Mix" test scenario described in Section 7.1

   To improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT configuration
   including description of all enabled DUT/SUT features MUST be
   published with the benchmarking results.

                  +---------------------------+
                  |             NGFW          |
   +------------------------------------------+
   |              |       |Included  |Added to|
   |DUT Features  |Feature|in initial|future  |
   |              |       |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 summary, DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured as follows:




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   o  All security inspection enabled

   o  Disposition of all traffic is logged - Logging to an external
      device is permissible

   o  CVEs matching the following characteristics when serving the NVD


      *  CVSS Version: 2

      *  CVSS V2 Metrics: AV:N/Au:N/I:C/A:C

      *  AV=Attack Vector, Au=Authentication, I=Integrity and
         A=Availability

      *  CVSS V2 Severity: High (7-10)

      *  If doing a group test the published start date and published
         end date should be the same

   o  Geographical location filtering and Application Identification and
      Control configured to be triggered based on a site or application
      from the defined traffic mix

   In addition, 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 firewall throughput performance number defined in the
   vendor data sheet.  This document classifies the DUT/SUT in three
   different categories; namely small, medium, and maximum.

   The RECOMMENDED throughput values for the following classes are:

   Extra Small (XS) - supported throughput less than 1Gbit/s

   Small (S) - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s

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

   Large (L) - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s

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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   +---------------------------------------------------+---------------+
   |                                                   | UD/SUT        |
   |                                                   | lCssification |
   |                                                   |  #ules        |
   +-----------+-----------+------------------+------------+---+---+---+
   |           | Match     |                  |        |   |   |   |   |
   | Rules Type| Criteria  |   Description    | Action | XS| S | M | L |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application|Application| Any application  |  block | 5 | 10| 20| 50|
   |layer      |           | traffic NOT      |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | included in the  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic     |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-----------------------+ ------------------------------------------+
   |Transport  |Src IP and | Any src IP use in|  block | 25| 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 | 25| 50|100|250|
   |           |           | NOT used in the  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test             |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application|Application| Applications     |  allow | 10| 10| 10| 10|
   |layer      |           | included in the  |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic     |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Transport  |Src IP and | Half of the src  |  allow |  1|  1|  1|  1|
   |layer      |TCP/UDP    | IP used in the   |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |Dst ports  | test AND any dst |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | ports used in the|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test traffic. One|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | rule per subnet  |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IP layer   |Src IP     | The rest of the  |  allow |  1|  1|  1|  1|
   |           |           | src IP subnet    |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | range used in the|        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | test. One rule   |        |   |   |   |   |
   |           |           | per subnet       |        |   |   |   |   |
   +-----------+-----------+------------------+--------+---+---+---+---+

                       Table 2: DUT/SUT Access List

4.3.  Test Equipment Configuration

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



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   This document specifies common test equipment configuration
   parameters applicable for all test scenarios defined in Section 7.
   Any test scenario specific parameters are described under test setup
   section of each test scenario individually.

4.3.1.  Client Configuration

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

4.3.1.1.  TCP Stack Attributes

   The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno 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 respectively and a TX and RX receive windows of 32768
   bytes.  Client initial congestion window MUST NOT exceed 10 times the
   MSS.  Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum client delayed Ack
   MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS before a forced ACK.  Up to 3
   retries SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is declared.  All
   traffic MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high.  The source port range
   SHOULD be in the range of 1024 - 65535.  Internal timeout SHOULD be
   dynamically scalable per RFC 793.  Client SHOULD initiate and close
   TCP connections.  TCP connections MUST be closed via FIN.

4.3.1.2.  Client IP Address Space

   The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following
   attributes.  The traffic blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique,
   discontinuous static address blocks.  A default gateway is permitted.
   The IPv4 ToS byte or IPv6 traffic class should be set to '00' or
   '000000' respectively.

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

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

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

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





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Based on deployment and use case 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

   (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 depending on test scenario.
   The browser MAY open multiple TCP connections per Server endpoint IP
   at any time depending on how many sequential transactions are needed
   to be processed.  Within the TCP connection multiple transactions MAY
   be processed if the emulated browser has available connections.  The
   browser SHOULD advertise a User-Agent header.  Headers MUST be sent
   uncompressed.  The browser SHOULD enforce content length validation.

   For encrypted traffic, the following attributes shall define the
   negotiated encryption parameters.  The tests MUST use TLSv1.2 or
   higher with a record size of 16383, commonly used cipher suite and
   key strength.  Depending on test scenario, Session reuse or ticket
   resumption MAY be used for subsequent connections to the same Server
   endpoint IP.  The client endpoint MUST send TLS Extension Server Name
   Indication (SNI) information when opening a security tunnel.  Cipher
   suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session
   of each test scenario.

4.3.2.  Backend Server Configuration

   This document specifies 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 and IPv6 MSS segment size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   1440 bytes respectively and a TX and RX receive windows of at least
   32768 bytes.  Server initial congestion window MUST NOT exceed 10
   times the MSS.  Delayed ACKs are permitted and the maximum server
   delayed Ack MUST NOT exceed 10 times the MSS before a forced ACK.  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.

4.3.2.2.  Server Endpoint IP Addressing

   The server IP blocks SHOULD consist of unique, discontinuous static
   address blocks with one IP per Server Fully Qualified Domain Name
   (FQDN) endpoint per test port.  The IPv4 ToS byte and IPv6 traffic
   class bytes should be set to '00' and '000000' respectively.

4.3.2.3.  HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes

   The server pool for HTTP SHOULD listen on TCP port 80 and emulate
   HTTP version 1.1 with persistence.  The server MUST advertise 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
   SHOULD be enabled based on test scenario.  The server MUST listen on
   port TCP 443.  The server shall serve a certificate to the client.
   It is REQUIRED that the HTTPS server also check Host SNI information
   with the FQDN.  Cipher suite and certificate size should be defined
   in the parameter section of each test scenario.

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
   (FQDN) in Host Headers and for TLS Server Name Indication (SNI).







Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 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 initiates traffic,
   this section describes how the client steps though different
   services.  Once initialized, the client 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 a new TCP connection or connect to a TCP persistence
   stack still open to that specific server.  At any point that the
   service profile may require encryption, a TLS encryption tunnel will
   form presenting the URL request to the server.  The server will then
   perform an SNI name check with the proposed FQDN compared to the
   domain embedded in the certificate.  Only when correct, will the
   server process the HTTPS response object.  The initial response
   object to the server MUST NOT have a fixed size; its size is based on
   benchmarking tests described in Section 7.  Multiple additional sub-
   URLs (response objects on the service page) MAY be requested
   simultaneously.  This may 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 is described in this section.  The loading of
   a traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init, ramp up,
   sustain, ramp down, and collection.

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

   In the ramp up phase, the test equipment SHOULD start to generate the
   test traffic.  It SHOULD use a set approximate number of unique
   client IP addresses actively to generate traffic.  The traffic should
   ramp from zero to desired target objective.  The target objective
   will be defined for each benchmarking test.  The duration for the
   ramp up phase MUST be configured long enough, so that the test
   equipment does not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported performance metrics
   namely; connections per second, concurrent TCP connections, and
   application transactions per second.  The RECOMMENDED time duration




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   for the ramp up phase is 180-300 seconds.  No measurements are made
   in this phase.

   In the sustain phase, the test equipment SHOULD continue generating
   traffic to 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 connections are established, and
   no measurements are made.  The time duration for ramp up and ramp
   down phase SHOULD be same.  The RECOMMENDED 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
       entire test session.  Several factors might influence stability
       specifically for virtualized test beds, for example additional
       workloads in a virtualized system, load balancing and movement of
       virtual machines during the test, or simple issues such as
       additional heat created by high workloads leading to an emergency
       CPU performance reduction.

   Test bed reference pre-tests help to ensure that the 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.



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Test bed preparation may be performed either by configuring the DUT
   in the most trivial setup (fast forwarding) or without presence of
   DUT.

6.  Reporting

   This section describes how the final report should be formatted and
   presented.  The final test report MAY have two major sections;
   Introduction and result sections.  The following attributes SHOULD be
   present in the introduction section of the test report.

   1.  The name of the NetSecOPEN traffic mix (see Appendix A) MUST be
       prominent.

   2.  The time and date of the execution of the test MUST be prominent.

   3.  Summary of testbed software and Hardware details

       A.  DUT Hardware/Virtual Configuration

           +  This section SHOULD clearly identify the make and model of
              the DUT

           +  The port interfaces, including speed and link information
              MUST be documented.

           +  If the DUT is a virtual VNF, interface acceleration such
              as DPDK and SR-IOV MUST be documented as well as cores
              used, RAM used, and the pinning / resource sharing
              configuration.  The Hypervisor and version MUST be
              documented.

           +  Any additional hardware relevant to the DUT such as
              controllers MUST be documented

       B.  DUT Software

           +  The operating system name MUST be documented

           +  The version MUST be documented

           +  The specific configuration MUST be documented

       C.  DUT Enabled Features

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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


           +  Attributes of those featured MUST be documented

           +  Any additional relevant information about features MUST be
              documented

       D.  Test equipment hardware and software

           +  Test equipment vendor name

           +  Hardware details including model number, interface type

           +  Test equipment firmware and test application software
              version

   4.  Results Summary / Executive Summary

       1.  Results should resemble a pyramid in how it is reported, with
           the introduction section documenting the summary of results
           in a prominent, easy to read block.

       2.  In the result section of the test report, the following
           attributes should be present for each test scenario.

           a.  KPIs MUST be documented separately for each test
               scenario.  The format of the KPI metrics should be
               presented as described in Section 6.1.

           b.  The next level of details SHOULD be graphs showing each
               of these metrics over the duration (sustain phase) of the
               test.  This allows the user to see the measured
               performance stability changes over time.

6.1.  Key Performance Indicators

   This section lists KPIs for overall benchmarking tests scenarios.
   All KPIs MUST be measured during the of sustain phase of the traffic
   load profile described in Section 4.3.4.  All KPIs MUST be measured
   from the result output of test equipment.

   o  Concurrent TCP Connections
      This key performance indicator measures the average concurrent
      open TCP connections in the sustaining period.

   o  TCP Connections Per Second
      This key performance indicator measures the average established
      TCP connections per second in the sustaining period.  For "TCP/
      HTTP(S) Connection Per Second" benchmarking test scenario, the KPI




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


      is measured average established and terminated TCP connections per
      second simultaneously.

   o  Application Transactions Per Second
      This key performance indicator measures the average successfully
      completed application transactions per second in the sustaining
      period.

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

   o  Throughput
      This key performance indicator measures the average Layer 2
      throughput within the sustaining period as well as average packets
      per seconds within the same period.  The value of throughput
      SHOULD be presented in Gbit/s rounded to two places of precision
      with a more specific 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 measures the minimum, average and
      maximum per URL response time in the sustaining period.  The
      latency is measured at Client and in this case would be the time
      duration between sending a GET request from Client and the
      receival of the complete response from the server.

   o  Application Transaction Latency
      This key performance indicator measures the minimum, average and
      maximum the amount of time to receive all objects from the server.
      The value of application transaction latency SHOULD be presented
      in millisecond rounded to zero decimal.

   o  Time to First Byte (TTFB)
      This key performance indicator will measure minimum, average and
      maximum the time to first byte.  TTFB is the elapsed time between
      sending the SYN packet from the client and receiving the first
      byte of application date from the DUT/SUT.  TTFB SHOULD be
      expressed in millisecond.

7.  Benchmarking Tests








Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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)

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.

   This test scenario is RECOMMENDED to perform twice; one with SSL
   inspection feature enabled and the second scenario with SSL
   inspection feature disabled on the DUT/SUT.

7.1.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   noted for this test scenario:

      Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

      Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
      Section 4.3.1.2

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

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

      Initial throughput: 10% of the "Target throughput"



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.1.3.3.  Traffic Profile

   Traffic profile: Test scenario MUST be run with a single application
   traffic mix profile (see Appendix A for details about traffic mix).
   The name of the NetSecOPEN traffic mix MUST be documented.

7.1.3.4.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

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

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

   c.  Maximum deviation (max. dev) of application transaction time or
       TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST be less than X (The value for "X"
       will be finalized and updated after completion of PoC test)
       The following equation MUST be used to calculate the deviation of
       application transaction latency 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 latency
       or TTLB.
       Initial latency:= min((avg' latency - min' latency) | (max'
       latency - avg' latency))

   d.  Maximum value of Time to First Byte MUST be less than X

7.1.3.5.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   Mandatory KPIs: average Throughput, average Concurrent TCP
   connections, TTLB/application transaction latency (minimum, average
   and maximum) and average application transactions per second

   Optional KPIs: average TCP connections per second, average TLS
   handshake rate and TTFB




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.1.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results

   The test procedures are designed to measure the throughput
   performance of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
   profile.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.

7.1.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be "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 test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load profile
   definition as described in Section 4.3.4.  The DUT/SUT SHOULD reach
   the "initial throughput" during the sustain phase.  Measure all KPI
   as defined in Section 7.1.3.5.  The measured KPIs during the sustain
   phase MUST meet 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 metric measurements 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

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   acceptance criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
   test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.








Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.2.  TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second

7.2.1.  Objective

   Using HTTP traffic, determine the maximum sustainable TCP connection
   establishment rate supported by the DUT/SUT under different
   throughput load conditions.

   To measure connections per second, test iterations MUST use different
   fixed HTTP response object sizes defined in the test equipment
   configuration parameters section 7.2.3.2.

7.2.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.2.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.2.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
   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 the section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST
   be documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target connections per second: Initial value from product data sheet
   (if known)

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





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   The client SHOULD negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connection with
   FIN immediately after completion of one transaction.  In each test
   iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTP
   response object size.

   The RECOMMENDED response object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16, 64 KByte

7.2.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

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

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

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

   d.  Concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be constant during steady
       state.  The deviation of concurrent TCP connections MUST be less
       than 10%. This confirms that DUT open and close the TCP
       connections almost at the same rate

7.2.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test iteration.

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

7.2.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections per
   second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
   profile.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This
   test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IP
   types; IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic
   distribution.








Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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 connections per second" as defined in the parameters
   section.  The traffic load profile SHOULD 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
   7.3.3.3.

   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 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 of each test iteration, other
   KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and application
   transactions per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/
   SUT can support.  The test results for specific test iterations
   SHOULD NOT be reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially
   throughput) reaches to the maximum value.  (Example: If the test
   iteration with 64Kbyte of HTTP response object size reached the
   maximum throughput limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be
   interrupted and the result for 64kbyte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   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 connections 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 & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.2.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

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

7.3.  HTTP Transaction per Second

7.3.1.  Objective

   Using HTTP 1.1 traffic, determine the maximum sustainable HTTP
   transactions per second supported by the DUT/SUT under different
   throughput load conditions.

   To measure transactions per second performance under a variety of DUT
   Security inspection load conditions, each test iteration MUST use
   different fixed HTTP response object sizes defined in the test
   equipment configuration parameters section 7.3.3.2.

7.3.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.3.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.3.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.3.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in the section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST
   be documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Target Transactions per second: Initial value from product data sheet
   (if known)

   Initial Transactions per second: 10% of "Target Transactions per
   second"

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

   The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the connections with FIN
   immediately after completion of 10 transactions.  In each test
   iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTP
   response object size.  The RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 16 and 64
   KByte

7.3.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero

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

   c.  Traffic should be forwarded at a constant rate

   d.  Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be constant and not increase
       more than 10%

   e.  The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%

7.3.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   average TCP Connections per second, average Throughput, Average Time
   to TCP First Byte and average application transaction latency.

7.3.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the HTTP transactions per
   second 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 IP




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   types; IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed 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 HTTP transactions 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 HTTP transactions 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 HTTP transactions 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 of each test iteration, other
   KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and connection
   per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can
   support.  The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be
   reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches
   to the maximum value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte
   of HTTP response object size reached the maximum throughput
   limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the
   result for 64kbyte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   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 HTTP transactions
   per second 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 & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.3.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable HTTP transactions per
   second within the acceptance criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be
   performed for the test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.4.  TCP/HTTP Transaction Latency

7.4.1.  Objective

   Using HTTP traffic, determine the average HTTP transaction latency
   when DUT is running with sustainable HTTP transactions per second
   supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTP response object sizes.

   Test iterations MUST be performed with different HTTP response object
   sizes twice, one with a single transaction and the other with
   multiple transactions within a single TCP connection.  For
   consistency both single and multiple transaction test needs to be
   configured with HTTP 1.1.

7.4.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc.  MUST be documented.

7.4.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.4.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
   section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.4.3.2.  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 defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Target connections per second:50% of the value measured in test
   scenario TCP/HTTP Connections Per Second (Section 7.2)

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

   HTTP transaction per TCP connection: one test scenario with single
   transaction and another scenario with 10 transactions

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

   To measure application transaction latency with a single connection
   per transaction and a single connection with multiple transactions
   the tests should run twice:

   1st test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
   connection with FIN immediately after completion of the transaction.

   2nd test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTP 1.1 and close the
   connection after 10 transactions (GET and RESPONSE) within a single
   TCP connection.

   HTTP 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 Kbyte
   objects.  For each test iteration, client MUST request a single HTTP
   response object size.

7.4.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.  Ramp up and
   ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.

   Generica criteria:

   a.  Number of failed Application transaction MUST be zero.

   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connection due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be zero.

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

   d.  During the sustain phase, Average connect time and average
       transaction time MUST be constant and latency deviation SHOULD
       not increase more than 10%.




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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

   f.  After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the target connections per
       second objective defined in the parameter section 7.4.3.2 and it
       remains in that state for the entire test duration (sustain
       phase).

7.4.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
   HTTP response object sizes separately:

   average TCP connections per second and average application
   transaction latency needs to be recorded.

   All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
   achieves the steady state.

7.4.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the average application
   transaction latencies or TTLB when the DUT is operating close to 50%
   of its maximum achievable connections per second. , This test
   procedure CAN be repeated multiple times with different IP types
   (IPv4 only, IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic distribution),
   HTTP response object sizes and single and multiple transactions per
   connection scenarios.

7.4.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be "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, d ,e and f defined in section
   7.4.3.3.

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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.4.4.2.  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,
   concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
   MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that DUT/SUT can support.  The
   test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be reported, if
   the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
   maximum value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte of HTTP
   response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
   DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the result for 64kbyte
   SHOULD NOT be reported).

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

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

7.4.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
   acceptance criteria and measure the latency values.

7.5.  HTTP Throughput

7.5.1.  Objective

   Determine the throughput for HTTP transactions varying the HTTP
   response object size.

7.5.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.







Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.5.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.5.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
   section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.5.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in the section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST
   be documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)

   Number of HTTP response object requests (transactions) per
   connection: 10

   HTTP response object size: 16KB, 64KB, 256KB and mixed objects
   defined in the table





















Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
   |                     | Weight              |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 0.2                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 6                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 8                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 9                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 10                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 25                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 26                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 35                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 59                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 347                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+

                          Table 3: Mixed Objects

7.5.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile

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

   b.  Traffic should be forwarded constantly.

   c.  The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%

   d.  The deviation of average HTTP transaction latency MUST be less
       than 10%

7.5.3.4.  Measurement

   The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Average Throughput, concurrent connections, and average TCP
   connections per second.

7.5.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure HTTP throughput of the DUT/
   SUT.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This test
   procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
   traffic distribution and HTTP response object sizes.

7.5.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

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

   Configure traffic load profile of the test equipment to establish
   "initial throughput" 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 throughput"
   during the sustain phase.  Measure all KPI as defined in
   Section 7.5.3.4.

   The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the acceptance
   criteria "a" defined in Section 7.5.3.3.

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

7.5.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement 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 at the
   sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
   acceptance criteria.

   Perform the test separately for each HTTP response object size (16k,
   64k, 256k and mixed HTTP response objects).

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







Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.5.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   acceptance criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
   test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.6.  Concurrent TCP/HTTP Connection Capacity

7.6.1.  Objective

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

7.6.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in Section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.

7.6.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.6.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in
   Section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.6.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in Section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST be
   noted for this test scenario:

      Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

      Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
      Section 4.3.1.2

      Target concurrent connection: Initial value from product data
      sheet (if known)

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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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

   Each client sends 10 GET commands requesting 1Kbyte HTTP response
   object in the same TCP connection (10 transactions/TCP connection)
   and the delay (think time) between the transaction MUST be X seconds.
   The value for think time (X) MUST be defined to achieve 15% of
   maximum throughput measured in test scenario 7.5.

   The established connections SHOULD remain open until the ramp down
   phase of the test.  During the ramp down phase, all connections
   should be successfully closed with FIN.

7.6.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transaction MUST be zero

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

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded constantly
       at the rate defined in the parameter section 7.6.3.2

   d.  During the sustain phase, the maximum deviation (max. dev) of
       application transaction latency or TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST
       be less than 10%

7.6.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   average Throughput, max.  Min. Avg. Concurrent TCP connections, TTLB/
   application transaction latency (minimum, average and maximum) and
   average application transactions per second.

7.6.4.  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.




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.6.4.1.  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 test equipment to generate background traffic ad defined in
   section 7.6.3.2.  Measure throughput, concurrent TCP connections, and
   TCP connections per second.

   While generating the background traffic, configure another traffic
   profile on the test equipment to establish "initial concurrent TCP
   connections" defined in the section 7.6.3.2.  The traffic load
   profile CAN be defined as described in the section Error: Reference
   source not found.

   During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial
   concurrent TCP connections" plus concurrent TCP connections measured
   in background traffic.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase
   MUST meet the acceptance criteria "a" and "b" defined in the section
   Error: Reference source not found

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

7.6.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
   connections" defined in the parameters table.  The test equipment
   SHOULD follow the traffic load profile definition as described in
   Section 4.3.4.

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
   connections" minus concurrent TCP connections measured in background
   traffic.  The test equipment SHOULD follow the traffic load profile
   definition as described in the section Error: Reference source not
   found.

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

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
   section 7.6.3.4.  The frequency of measurement MUST be less than 5
   seconds.  Continue the test until all traffic profile phases are
   completed.





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   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.

7.6.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
   connections capacity within the acceptance criteria.

7.7.  TCP/HTTPS Connections per second

7.7.1.  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 ciphers and keys defined in the parameter section
   7.7.3.2

   For each cipher suite and key strengths, test iterations MUST use a
   single HTTPS response object size defined in the test equipment
   configuration parameters section 7.7.3.2 to measure connections per
   second performance under a variety of DUT Security inspection load
   conditions.

7.7.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.

7.7.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.7.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
   section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.7.3.2.  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 defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target connections per second: Initial value from product data sheet
   (if known)

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

   Ciphers and keys:

   1.  ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
       sepc256r1)

   2.  ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: rsa_pkscs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)

   3.  ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group:
       sepc521r1)

   4.  ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)

   The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection with FIN
   immediately after completion of one transaction.  In each test
   iteration, client MUST send GET command requesting a fixed HTTPS
   response object size.  The RECOMMENDED object sizes are 1, 2, 4, 16,
   64 Kbyte.

   Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
   certificate (no Certificate on client side) and MUST NOT use session
   reuse or resumption.  TLS record size MAY be optimized for the HTTPS
   response object size up to a record size of 16K.






Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.7.3.3.  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 transactions

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

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

   d.  Concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be constant during steady
       state.  This confirms that DUT open and close the TCP connections
       at the same rate

7.7.3.4.  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.

7.7.4.  Test Procedures and expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the TCP connections per
   second rate of the DUT/SUT at the sustaining period of traffic load
   profile.  The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This
   test procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and
   IPv6 traffic distribution.

7.7.4.1.  Step 1: Test Initialization and Qualification

   Verify the link status of the all connected physical interfaces.  All
   interfaces are expected to be "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
   7.7.3.3.



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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

7.7.4.2.  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,
   concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
   MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can support.  The
   test results for specific test iteration SHOULD NOT be reported, if
   the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches to the
   maximum value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte of HTTPS
   response object size reached the maximum throughput limitation of the
   DUT, the test iteration can be interrupted and the result for 64kbyte
   SHOULD NOT be reported).

   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 connections 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.

7.7.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

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

7.8.  HTTPS Transaction per Second

7.8.1.  Objective

   Using HTTPS traffic, determine the maximum sustainable HTTPS
   transactions per second supported by the DUT/SUT under different
   throughput load conditions.

   To measure transactions per second performance under a variety of DUT
   Security inspection load conditions, each test iteration MUST use
   different fixed HTTPS transaction object sizes defined in the test
   equipment configuration parameters section 7.8.3.2.



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Test iterations MUST include common cipher suites and key strengths
   as well as forward looking stronger keys.  Specific test iterations
   MUST include the ciphers and keys defined in the parameter section
   7.8.3.2.

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 defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target Transactions per second: Initial value from product data sheet
   (if known)

   Initial Transactions per second: 10% of "Target Transactions per
   second"

   Ciphers and keys:

   1.  ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
       sepc256r1)

   2.  ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: rsa_pkscs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   3.  ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group:
       sepc521r1)

   4.  ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)

   The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the connection with FIN
   immediately after completion of 10 transactions.

   HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 and 64 KByte
   objects.

   Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
   certificate and SHOULD 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.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.  Ramp up and
   ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero

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

   c.  Average Time to TCP First Byte MUST be constant and not increase
       more than 10%

   d.  The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%

7.8.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario.

   average TCP connections per second, average Throughput, Average Time
   to TCP First Byte and average application transaction latency.








Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.8.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure the HTTPS transactions 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, HTTPS response object sizes and ciphers
   and keys.

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 HTTPS transactions 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 HTTPS transactions 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 HTTPS transactions 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 of each test iteration, other
   KPIs such as throughput, concurrent TCP connections and connections
   per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value the DUT/SUT can
   support.  The test results for specific test iterations SHOULD NOT be
   reported, if the above mentioned KPI (especially throughput) reaches
   to the maximum value.  (Example: If the test iteration with 64Kbyte
   of HTTP response object size reached the maximum throughput
   limitation of the DUT, the test iteration MAY be interrupted and the
   result for 64kbyte SHOULD NOT be reported).

   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.




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 42]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target HTTPS
   transactions 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.

7.8.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable HTTPS transactions per
   second within the acceptance criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be
   performed for the test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.9.  HTTPS Transaction Latency

7.9.1.  Objective

   Using HTTPS traffic, determine the average HTTPS transaction latency
   when DUT is running with sustainable HTTPS transactions per second
   supported by the DUT/SUT under different HTTPS response object size.

   Test iterations MUST be performed with different HTTPS response
   object sizes twice, one with a single transaction and the other with
   multiple transactions within a single TCP connection.

7.9.2.  Test Setup

   Test bed setup SHOULD be configured as defined in section 4.  Any
   specific test bed configuration changes such as number of interfaces
   and interface type, etc. must be documented.

7.9.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.9.3.1.  DUT/SUT Configuration Parameters

   DUT/SUT parameters MUST conform to the requirements defined in the
   section 4.2.  Any configuration changes for this specific test
   scenario MUST be documented.

7.9.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in the section 4.3.  Following parameters MUST
   be documented for this test scenario:

   Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 43]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Cipher suites and key size: ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with
   Secp521 bits key size (Signature Hash Algorithmn:
   ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)

   Target connections per second:50% of the value measured in test
   scenario TCP/HTTPS Connections per second (Section 7.7)

   Initial Transactions per second: 10% of "Target Transactions per
   second"

   HTTPS transaction per connection: one test scenario with a single
   transaction and another scenario with 10 transactions

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

   To measure application transaction latency with a single connection
   per transaction and single connection with multiple transactions the
   tests should run twice:

   1st test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the
   connection with FIN immediately after completion of the transaction.

   2nd test run: The client MUST negotiate HTTPS 1.1 and close the
   connection after 10 transactions (GET and RESPONSE) within a single
   TCP connection.

   HTTPS 1.1 with GET command requesting a single 1, 16 or 64 Kbyte
   objects.  For each test iteration, client MUST request a single HTTPS
   response object size.

7.9.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.  Ramp up and
   ramp down phase SHOULD NOT be considered.

   Generic creteria:

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 44]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   b.  Number of Terminated TCP connections due to unexpected TCP RST
       sent by DUT/SUT MUST be zero.

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

   d.  During the sustain phase and average application transaction
       latency MUST be constant and latency deviation SHOULD NOT
       increase more than 10%.

   e.  Concurrent TCP connections SHOULD be constant during steady
       state.  This confirms the DUT opens and closes the TCP
       connections at the same rate.

   f.  After ramp up the DUT MUST achieve the target connections per
       second objective defined in the parameter section and remain in
       that state for the entire duration of the sustain phase.

7.9.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for each test scenario and
   HTTPS response object sizes separately:

   average TCP connections per second and average application
   transaction latency or TTLB needs to be recorded.

   All KPI's are measured once the target connections per second
   achieves the steady state.

7.9.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure is designed to measure average application
   transaction latency or TTLB when the DUT is operating close to 50% of
   its maximum achievable connections per second. , This test procedure
   CAN be repeated multiple times with different IP types (IPv4 only,
   IPv6 only and IPv4 and IPv6 mixed traffic distribution), HTTPS
   response object sizes and single and multiple transactions per
   connection scenarios.

7.9.4.1.  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 & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 45]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 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, d ,e and f defined in section
   7.4.3.3.

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

7.9.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target 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,
   concurrent TCP connections and application transactions per second
   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.
   DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target connections per
   second rate at the sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs
   must meet all acceptance criteria.

   The DUT/SUT is expected to reach the desired target HTTPS
   transactions 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.

7.9.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum achievable connections per second within the
   acceptance criteria and measure the latency values.

7.10.  HTTPS Throughput

7.10.1.  Objective

   Determine the throughput for HTTPS transactions varying the HTTPS
   response object size.

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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 46]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   MUST include the ciphers and keys defined in the parameter section
   7.10.3.2.

7.10.2.  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.

7.10.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.10.3.1.  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.

7.10.3.2.  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 defined in Section 4.3.1.2

   Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

   Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
   Section 4.3.1.2

   Target Throughput: Initial value from product data sheet (if known)

   Number of HTPPS response object requests (transactions) per
   connection: 10

   Ciphers and keys:

   1.  ECHDE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with Prime256v1 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 and Supported group:
       sepc256r1)

   2.  ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 with RSA 2048 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: rsa_pkscs1_sha256 and Supported group: sepc256)






Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 47]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   3.  ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with Secp521 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group:
       sepc521r1)

   4.  ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with RSA 4096 (Signature Hash
       Algorithmn: rsa_pkcs1_sha384 and Supported group: secp256)

   HTTPS response object size: 16KB, 64KB, 256KB and mixed object
   defined in the table below.

   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | Object size (KByte) | Number of requests/ |
   |                     | Weight              |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 0.2                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 6                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 8                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 9                   | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 10                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 25                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 26                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 35                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 59                  | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+
   | 347                 | 1                   |
   +---------------------+---------------------+

                          Table 4: Mixed Objects

   Each client connection MUST perform a full handshake with server
   certificate (no Certificate on client side) and 50% of connection
   SHOULD use session reuse or resumption.

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








Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 48]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.10.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

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

   b.  Traffic should be forwarded constantly.

   c.  The deviation of concurrent TCP connection Must be less than 10%

   d.  The deviation of average application transaction latency MUST be
       less than 10%

7.10.3.4.  Measurement

   The KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   Average Throughput, concurrent connections, and average TCP
   connections per second.

7.10.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results

   The test procedure consists of three major steps.  This test
   procedure MAY be repeated multiple times with different IPv4 and IPv6
   traffic distribution and HTTPS response object sizes.

7.10.4.1.  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 throughput" 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 throughput"
   during the sustain phase.  Measure all KPI as defined in
   Section 7.10.3.4.

   The measured KPIs during the sustain phase MUST meet the acceptance
   criteria "a" defined in Section 7.10.3.3.

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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 49]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.10.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record all specified
   KPIs.  The frequency of measurement 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 at the
   sustain phase.  In addition, the measured KPIs must meet all
   acceptance criteria.

   Perform the test separately for each HTTPS response object size (16k,
   64k, 256k and mixed HTTPS response objects).

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

7.10.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable throughput within the
   acceptance criteria.  Final test iteration MUST be performed for the
   test duration defined in Section 4.3.4.

7.11.  Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity

7.11.1.  Objective

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

7.11.2.  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.

7.11.3.  Test Parameters

   In this section, test scenario specific parameters SHOULD be defined.

7.11.3.1.  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.







Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 50]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.11.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters

   Test equipment configuration parameters MUST conform to the
   requirements defined in the section Error: Reference source not
   found.  Following parameters MUST be documented for this test
   scenario:

      Client IP address range defined in Section 4.3.1.2

      Server IP address range defined in Section 4.3.2.2

      Traffic distribution ratio between IPv4 and IPv6 defined in
      Section 4.3.1.2

      Cipher suites and key size: ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 with
      Secp521 bits key size (Signature Hash Algorithmn:
      ecdsa_secp256r1_sha384 and Supported group: sepc521r1)

      Target concurrent connection: Initial value from product data
      sheet (if known)

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

      Maximum connections per second during ramp up phase: 50% of
      maximum connections per second measured in test scenario TCP/HTTPS
      Connections per second (Section 7.7)

      Throughput for background traffic: 10% of maximum throughput
      measured in test scenario HTTPS Throughput (Section 7.10)7.10
      using an HTTPS response object size of 16Kbyte with a matching
      cipher and key size to what is being tested in this test

   The client must perform HTTPS transaction with persistence and each
   client can open multiple concurrent TCP connections per server
   endpoint IP.

   Each client sends 10 times of GET commands requesting 1Kbyte HTTPS
   response object in the same TCP connections (10 transactions/TCP
   connection) and the delay (think time) between the transaction MUST
   be X seconds.  The value for think time (X) MUST be defined to
   achieve 15% of maximum throughput measured in test scenario 7.10.

   The established connections (except background traffic connection)
   SHOULD remain open until the end phase of the test.  During the ramp
   down phase, all connections should be successfully closed with FIN.





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 51]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


7.11.3.3.  Test Results Acceptance Criteria

   The following test Criteria is defined as test results acceptance
   criteria.  Test results acceptance criteria MUST be monitored during
   the whole sustain phase of the traffic load profile.

   a.  Number of failed Application transactions MUST be zero.

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

   c.  During the sustain phase, traffic should be forwarded constantly
       at the rate defined in the parameter section 7.11.3.2

   d.  During the sustain phase, then maximum deviation (max. dev) of
       application transaction latency or TTLB (Time To Last Byte) MUST
       be less than 10%

7.11.3.4.  Measurement

   Following KPI metrics MUST be reported for this test scenario:

   Average Throughput, max.  Min. Avg. Concurrent TCP connections, TTLB/
   application transaction latency and average application transactions
   per second

7.11.4.  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.

7.11.4.1.  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 test equipment to generate background traffic ad defined in
   section 7.3.11.2.  Measure throughput, concurrent TCP connections,
   and connections per second.

   While generating the background traffic, configure another traffic
   profile on the test equipment to establish "initial concurrent TCP
   connections" defined in the section 7.11.3.2.  The traffic load




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 52]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   profile CAN be defined as described in the section Error: Reference
   source not found

   During the sustain phase, the DUT/SUT SHOULD reach the "initial
   concurrent TCP connections" plus concurrent TCP connections measured
   in background traffic.  The measured KPIs during the sustain phase
   MUST meet the acceptance criteria "a" and "b" defined in the section
   Error: Reference source not found

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

7.11.4.2.  Step 2: Test Run with Target Objective

   Configure test equipment to establish "Target concurrent TCP
   connections" minus concurrent TCP connections measured in background
   traffic.  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, the other KPIs such as
   throughput, TCP connections per second and application transactions
   per second MUST NOT reach to the maximum value that the DUT/SUT can
   support.

   The test equipment SHOULD start to measure and record KPIs defined in
   section 7.11.3.4.  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 TCP
   connections 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.

7.11.4.3.  Step 3: Test Iteration

   Determine the maximum and average achievable concurrent TCP
   connections within the acceptance criteria.

8.  Formal Syntax

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.





Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 53]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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

10.  Acknowledgements

   Acknowledgements will be added in the future release.

11.  Contributors

   The authors would like to thank the many people that contributed
   their time and knowledge to this effort.

   Specifically to the co-chairs of the NetSecOPEN Test Methodology
   working group and the NetSecOPEN Security Effectiveness working group
   - Alex Samonte, Aria Eslambolchizadeh, Carsten Rossenhoevel and David
   DeSanto.

   Additionally the following people provided input, comments and spent
   time reviewiing the myriad of drafts.  If we have missed anyone the
   fault is entirely our own.  Thanks to - Amritam Putatunda,
   Balamuhunthan Balarajah, Brian Monkman, Chris Chapman, Chris Pearson,
   Chuck McAuley, David White, Jurrie Van Den Breekel, Michelle Rhines,
   Rob Andrews, Samaresh Nair, and Tim Winters.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2647]  Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
              Performance", RFC 2647, DOI 10.17487/RFC2647, August 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2647>.

   [RFC3511]  Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
              "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
              RFC 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3511>.








Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 54]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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)

   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




Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 55]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   The following is a description of what a popular application in an
   enterprise traffic mix contains.

   Table 5 lists the FQDNs, number of transactions and bytes transferred
   as an example client 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           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | 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           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 56]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   | clientlog.portal.office.com     | 6,608      | 8           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | webdir.online.lync.com          | 4,343      | 5           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | graph.microsoft.com             | 2,289      | 2           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | nam.loki.delve.office.com       | 1,812      | 5           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | login.microsoftonline.com       | 464        | 2           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+
   | login.windows.net               | 232        | 1           |
   +---------------------------------+------------+-------------+

                            Table 5: Office365

   Clients MUST connect to multiple server FQDNs in the same order as
   real applications.  Connections MUST be made when the client is
   interacting with the application and NOT first setup up all
   connections.  Connections SHOULD stay open per client for subsequent
   transactions to the same FQDN similar to how a web browser behaves.
   Clients MUST use different URL Paths and Object sizes in orders as
   they are observed in real Applications.  Clients MAY also setup
   multiple connections per FQDN to process multiple transactions in a
   sequence at the same time.  Table 6 has a partial example sequence of
   the Office 365 Word application transactions.

   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | FQDN                            | URL Path             | Object   |
   |                                 |                      | size     |
   +===================================================================+
   | company1-my.sharepoint.com      | /personal...         | 23,132   |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | word-edit.officeapps.live.com   | /we/WsaUpload.ashx   | 2        |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | static.sharepointonline.com     | /bld/.../blank.js    | 454      |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | static.sharepointonline.com     | /bld/.../            | 23,254   |
   |                                 | initstrings.js       |          |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | static.sharepointonline.com     | /bld/.../init.js     | 292,740  |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | company1-my.sharepoint.com      | /ScriptResource...   | 102,774  |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | company1-my.sharepoint.com      | /ScriptResource...   | 40,329   |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | company1-my.sharepoint.com      | /WebResource...      | 23,063   |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | word-edit.officeapps.live.com   | /we/wordeditorframe. | 60,657   |



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 57]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   |                                 | 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   |
   |                                 | WordEditorIntl.js    |          |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net  | /we/s/.../           | 1,978,712|
   |                                 | WordEditorExp.js     |          |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | s1-word-edit-15.cdn.office.net  | /we/s/.../jSanity.js | 10,912   |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+
   | word-edit.officeapps.live.com   | /we/OneNote.ashx     | 145,708  |
   +---------------------------------+----------------------+----------+

                   Table 6: Office365 Word Transactions

   For application identification the HTTPS/TLS traffic MUST include
   realistic Certificate Subject Common Name (CN) data as well as Server
   Name Indications.  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



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 58]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   the FQDN 5-edge-chat.facebook.com and identify traffic on the
   connection to be Facebook Chat.

   Table 7 includes further examples in SNI and CN pairs for several
   FQDNs of Office 365.

   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   |Server Name Indication (SNI)  | Certificate Subject              |
   |                              | Common Name (CN)                 |
   +=================================================================+
   | r1.res.office365.com         | *.res.outlook.com                |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | login.windows.net            | graph.windows.net                |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | webdir0a.online.lync.com     | *.online.lync.com                |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | login.microsoftonline.com    | stamp2.login.microsoftonline.com |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | webdir.online.lync.com       | *.online.lync.com                |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | graph.microsoft.com          | graph.microsoft.com              |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | outlook.office365.com        | outlook.com                      |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+
   | appsforoffice.microsoft.com  | appsforoffice.microsoft.com      |
   +------------------------------+----------------------------------+

               Table 7: Office365 SNI and CN Pairs Examples

   NetSecOPEN has provided a reference enterprise perimeter traffic mix
   with dozens of applications, hundreds of connections, and thousands
   of transactions.

   The enterprise perimeter traffic mix consists of 70% HTTPS and 30%
   HTTP by Bytes, 58% HTTPS and 42% HTTP by Transactions.  By
   connections with a single connection per FQDN the mix consists of 43%
   HTTPS and 57% HTTP.  With multiple connections per FQDN the HTTPS
   percentage is higher.

   Table 8 is a summary of the NetSecOPEN enterprise perimeter traffic
   mix sorted by bytes with unique FQDNs and transactions per
   applications.

   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+
   | Application      | FQDNs | Transactions | Bytes       |
   +=======================================================+
   | Office365        | 26    | 558          | 52,931,947  |
   +------------------+-------+--------------+-------------+



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 59]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 60]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 61]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


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



Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 62]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance       October 2018


   | 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 8: Summary of NetSecOPEN Enterprise Perimeter Traffic Mix

Authors' Addresses

   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 & Rossenhoevel Expires April 17, 2019                [Page 63]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/