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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth

Internet Engineering Task Force                              M. Hamilton
Internet-Draft                                     BreakingPoint Systems
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Banks
Expires: January 12, 2012                                  Cisco Systems
                                                           July 11, 2011


       Benchmarking Methodology for Content-Aware Network Devices
                  draft-hamilton-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-07

Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to define a set of test scenarios
   which may be used to create a series of statistics that will help to
   better understand the performance of network devices that operate at
   nework layers above IP.  More specifically, these scenarios are
   designed to most accurately predict performance of these devices when
   subjected to dynamic traffic patterns.  This document will operate
   within the constraints of the Benchmarking Working Group charter,
   namely black box characterization in a laboratory environment.

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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Test Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Clients and Servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Traffic Generation Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Discussion of Network Mathematics  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.5.  Framework for Traffic Specification  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.6.  Multiple Client/Server Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.7.  Device Configuration Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.7.1.  Network Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.7.2.  Network Address Translation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.7.3.  TCP Stack Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.7.4.  Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Maximum Application Flow Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.2.  Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
         4.1.2.1.  Application-Layer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.3.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.4.  Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
         4.1.4.1.  Maximum Application Flow Rate  . . . . . . . . . . 10
         4.1.4.2.  Application Flow Duration  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
         4.1.4.3.  Packet Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         4.1.4.4.  Application Flow Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  Application Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.2.  Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         4.2.2.1.  Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.3.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.4.  Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         4.2.4.1.  Maximum Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         4.2.4.2.  Packet Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
         4.2.4.3.  Maximum Application Flow Rate  . . . . . . . . . . 12
         4.2.4.4.  Application Flow Duration  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
         4.2.4.5.  Packet Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
         4.2.4.6.  Application Flow Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  Malicious Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


       4.3.2.  Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
         4.3.2.1.  Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.3.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.4.  Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.4.  Malformed Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.4.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.4.2.  Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.4.3.  Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.4.4.  Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  Appendix A: Example Test Case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17



































Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


1.  Introduction

   Content-aware and deep packet inspection (DPI) device penetration has
   grown significantly over the last decade.  No longer are devices
   simply using Ethernet headers and IP headers to make forwarding
   decisions.  Devices that could historically be classified as
   'stateless' or raw forwarding devices are now seeing more DPI
   functionality.  Devices such as core and edge routers are now being
   developed with DPI functionality to make more intelligent routing and
   forwarding decisions.

   The Benchmarking Working Group (BMWG) has historically produced
   Internet Drafts and Requests for Comment that are focused
   specifically on creating output metrics that are derived from a very
   specific and well-defined set of input parameters that are completely
   and unequivocally reproducible from testbed to testbed.  The end goal
   of such methodologies is to, in the words of the BMWG charter "reduce
   specmanship" from network equipment manufacturers(NEM's).  Existing
   BMWG work has certainly met this stated goal.

   Today, device sophistication has expanded beyond existing
   methodologies, allowing vendors to reengage in specmanship.  In order
   to achieve the stated BMWG goals, the methodologies designed to hold
   vendors accountable must evolve with the enhanced device
   functionality.

   The BMWG has historically avoided the use of the term "realistic"
   throughout all of its drafts and RFCs.  While this document will not
   explicitly use this term, the end goal of the terminology and
   methodology is to generate performance metrics that will be as close
   as possible to equivalent metrics in a production environment.  It
   should be further noted than any metrics acquired from a production
   network MUST be captured according to the policies and procedures of
   the IPPM or PMOL working groups.

   An explicit non-goal of this document is to replace existing
   methodology/terminology pairs such as RFC 2544 [1]/RFC 1242 [2] or
   RFC 3511 [3]/RFC 2647 [4].  The explicit goal of this document is to
   create a methodology and terminology pair that is more suited for
   modern devices while complementing the data acquired using existing
   BMWG methodologies.  Existing BMWG work generally revolves around
   completely repeatable input stimulus, expecting fully repeatable
   output.  This document departs from this mantra due to the nature of
   modern traffic and is more focused on output repeatability than on
   static input stimulus.

   Some of the terms used throughout this draft have previously been
   defined in "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance" RFC



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   2647 [4].  This document SHOULD be consulted prior to using this
   document.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [5].


2.  Scope

   Content-aware devices take many forms, shapes and architectures.
   These devices are advanced network interconnect devices that inspect
   deep into the application payload of network data packets to do
   classification.  They may be as simple as a firewall that uses
   application data inspection for rule set enforcement, or they may
   have advanced functionality such as performing protocol decoding and
   validation, anti-virus, anti-spam and even application exploit
   filtering.

   It shall be explicitly stated that this methodology does not imply
   the use of traffic captured from live networks and replayed.

   This document is strictly focused on examining performance and
   robustness across a focused set of metrics that may be used to more
   accurately predict device performance when deployed in modern
   networks.  These metrics will be implementation independent.

   It should also be noted that the purpose of this document is not to
   perform functional testing of the potential features in the Device/
   System Under Test (DUT/SUT)[4] nor specify the configurations that
   should be tested.  Various definitions of proper operation and
   configuration may be appropriate within different contexts.  While
   the definition of these parameters are outside the scope of this
   document, the specific configuration of both the DUT and tester
   SHOULD be published with the test results for repeatability and
   comparison purposes.

   While a list of devices that fall under this category will quickly
   become obsolete, an initial list of devices that would be well served
   by utilizing this type of methodology should prove useful.  Devices
   such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention devices,
   application delivery controllers, deep packet inspection devices, and
   unified threat management systems generally fall into the content-
   aware category.





Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


3.  Test Setup

   This document will be applicable to most test configurations and will
   not be confined to a discussion on specific test configurations.
   Since each DUT/SUT will have their own unique configuration, users
   MUST configure their device with the same parameters that would be
   used in the actual deployment of the device.  The DUT configuration
   MUST be published with the final benchmarking results.  If available,
   command-line scripts used to configured the DUT and any configuration
   information for the tester SHOULD be published with the final results

3.1.  Test Considerations

3.2.  Clients and Servers

   Content-aware device testing SHOULD involve multiple clients and
   multiple servers.  As with RFC 3511 [3], this methodology will use
   the terms virtual clients/servers because both the client and server
   will be represented by the tester and not actual clients/servers.
   Similarly defined in RFC 3511 [3], a data source may emulate multiple
   clients and/or servers within the context of the same test scenario.
   The test report MUST indicate the number of virtual clients/servers
   used during the test.  In Appendix C of RFC 2544 [1], the range of IP
   addresses assigned to the BMWG by the IANA are listed.  This address
   range SHOULD be adhered to in accordance with RFC 2544 [1].
   Additionally, section 5.2 of RFC 5180 [6] SHOULD be consulted for the
   appropriate address ranges when testing IPv6-enabled configurations.

3.3.  Traffic Generation Requirements

   The explicit purposes of content-aware devices vary widely, but these
   devices use information deeper inside the application flow to make
   decisions and classify traffic.  This methodology will utilize
   traffic flows that resemble real application traffic without
   utilizing captures from live production networks.  Application Flows,
   as defined in RFC 2722 [7] are able to be well-defined without simply
   referring to a network capture.  The traffic template is defined and
   listed in the appendix of this document.

   The test tool MUST be able to create application flows between every
   client and server, regardless of direction.  The tester MUST be able
   to open TCP connections on multiple destination ports and MUST be
   able to direct UDP traffic to multiple destination ports.

   While it is duly noted that no two production networks look alike,
   this document will illustrate an example mix of what traffic may look
   like on a sample production network.  A user of this methodology is
   free to utilize the sample mix as provided in the appendix.  If a



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   user of this methodology understands the traffic patterns in their
   production network, that user SHOULD use the framework provided in
   the appendix to create a traffic mix appropriate to their
   environment.

3.4.  Discussion of Network Mathematics

   Prior to executing the methodology as outlined in the following
   sections, it is imperative to understan the implications of utilizing
   representative application flows for the actual traffic content of
   the benchmarking effort.  One interesting aspect of utilizing
   application flows is that each flow is inherently different from
   every other application flow.  The content of each flow will vary
   from application to application, and in most cases, even varies
   within the same type of application flow.  The following description
   of the methodology will individually benchmark every individual type
   and subset of application flow, prior to performing similar tests
   with a traffic mix as specified either by the sample mix in the
   appendix, or as defined by the user of this methodology.

   The purpose of this process is to ensure that any performance
   implications that are discovered during the mixed testing aren't due
   to the inherent physical network limitations.  As an example of this
   phenomina, let's take a simgle-homed network device, as illustrated
   in the following diagram.

                                +----------+
                     +---+  1gE |   DUT/   | 1gE  +---+
                     |C/S|------|   SUT    |------|C/S|
                     +---+      +----------+      +---+

                         Simple DUT Configruation

                      Figure 1: Single-Homed Example

   For the purpose of this discussion, let's take a theoretical
   application flow that utilizes UDP for the transport layer.  Assume
   that the sample transaction we will be using to model this particular
   flow requires 10 UDP datagrams to complete the transaction.  For
   simplicity, each datagram within the flow is exactly 64 bytes,
   including associated Ethernet, IP, and UDP overhead.  With any
   network device,there are always three metrics which interact with
   each other: concurrent application flows, application flows per
   second, and throughput.

   Our example testbed is a single-homed device connected with 1 gigabit
   ethernet links.  The purpose of this benchmark effort is to quantify
   the number of application flows per second that may be processed



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   through our device under test.  Let's assume that the result from our
   scenario is that the DUT is able to process 10,000 application flows
   per second.  The question is whether that ceiling is the actual
   ceiling of the device, or if it is actual being gated by one of the
   other metrics.  If we do the appropriate math, 10000 flows per
   second, with each flow at 640 total bytes means that we are acheiving
   a throughput of roughtly 49 Mbps.  This is dramatically less than the
   1 gigabit physical link we are using.  We can conclude that 10,000
   flows per second is in fact the performance limit of the device.

   If we change the example slightly and change the size of each
   datagram to 1312 bytes, then we'll need to redo our math.  Assuming
   the same observed DUT limitation of 10,000 flows per second, we need
   to ensure that this is an artifact of the DUT, and not of physical
   limitations.  For each flow, we'll require 104,960 bits. 10,000 flows
   per second implies a throughput of roughly 1 Gbps.  At this point, we
   cannot difinitively answer whether the DUT is actually limited to
   10,000 flows per second.  If we are able to modify the scenario, and
   utilize 10 Gigabit interfaces, then perhaps the flow per second
   ceiling will be reached at a higher number than 10,000.

   This example illustrates why a user of this methodology MUST
   benchmark each application variant individually to ensure that each
   flow's ceilings are true ceilings, rather than an artifact of a
   different limitation.

3.5.  Framework for Traffic Specification

   The following table MUST be specified for each application flow
   variant.

   o  Flow Size in Bits

   o  Percentage of Aggregate Flows: 25%

   o  Transport Protocol(s): TCP,UDP

   o  Destination Port(s): 80

3.6.  Multiple Client/Server Testing

   In actual network deployments, connections are being established
   between multiple clients and multiple servers simultaneously.  Device
   vendors have been known to optimize the operation of their devices
   for easily defined patterns.  The connection sequence ordering
   scenarios a device will see on a network will likely be much less
   deterministic.  In fact, many application flows have multiple layer 4
   connections within a single flow, with client and server reversing



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   roles.  This methodology makes no assumptions about flow initiation
   sequence across multiple ports.

3.7.  Device Configuration Considerations

   The configruation of the DUT may have an effect on the observed
   results of the following methodology.  A comprehensive, but certainly
   not exhaustive, list of potential considerations is listed below.

3.7.1.  Network Addressing

   The IANA has issued a range of IP addresses to the BMWG for purposes
   of benchmarking.  Please refer to RFC 2544 [1] for more details.

3.7.2.  Network Address Translation

   Many content-aware devices are capable of performing Network Address
   Translation (NAT)[4].  If the final deployment of the DUT will have
   this functionality enabled, then the DUT MUST also have it enabled
   during the execution of this methodology.  It MAY be beneficial to
   perform the test series in both modes in order to determine the
   performance differential when using NAT.  The test report MUST
   indicate whether NAT was enabled during the testing process.

3.7.3.  TCP Stack Considerations

   As with RFC 3511 [3], TCP options SHOULD remain constant across all
   devices under test in order to ensure truly comparable results.  This
   document does not attempt to specify which TCP options should be
   used, but all devices tested SHOULD be subject to the same
   configuration options.

3.7.4.  Other Considerations

   Various content-aware devices will have widely varying feature sets.
   In the interest of representative test results, the DUT features that
   will likely be enabled in the final deployment SHOULD be used.  This
   methodology is not intended to advise on which features should be
   enabled, but to suggest using actual deployment configurations.


4.  Benchmarking Tests

   Each of the following benchmark scenarios SHOULD be run with each of
   the single application flow templates.  Upon completion of all
   iterations, the mixed test SHOULD be completed, subject to the
   traffic mix as defined by the user.




Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


4.1.  Maximum Application Flow Rate

4.1.1.  Objective

   To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to
   establish and complete application flows as defined by RFC 2647 [4].

4.1.2.  Setup Parameters

   The following parameters MUST be defined for all tests:

4.1.2.1.  Application-Layer Parameters

   For each application protocol in use during the test run, the table
   provided in Section 3.5 must be published.

4.1.3.  Procedure

   The test SHOULD generate application network traffic that meets the
   conditions of Section 3.3.  The traffic pattern SHOULD begin with an
   application flow rate of 10% of expected maximum.  The test SHOULD be
   configured to increase the attempt rate in units of 10% up through
   110% of expected maximum.  The duration of each loading phase SHOULD
   be at least 30 seconds.  This test MAY be repeated, each subsequent
   iteration beginning at 5% of expected maximum and increasing session
   establishment rate to 10% more than the maximum observed from the
   previous test run.

   This procedure MAY be repeated any number of times with the results
   being averaged together.

4.1.4.  Measurement

   The following metrics MAY be determined from this test, and SHOULD be
   observed for each application protocol within the traffic mix:

4.1.4.1.  Maximum Application Flow Rate

   The test tool SHOULD report the maximum rate at which application
   flows were completed, as defined by RFC 2647 [4], Section 3.7.  This
   rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol
   present within the traffic mix.

4.1.4.2.  Application Flow Duration

   The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
   application duration, as defined by RFC 2647 [4], Section 3.9.  This
   duration SHOULD be reported individually for each application



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   protocol present within the traffic mix.

4.1.4.3.  Packet Loss

   The test tool SHOULD report the number of flow packets lost or
   dropped from source to destination.

4.1.4.4.  Application Flow Latency

   The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average amount
   of time an application flow member takes to traverse the DUT, as
   defined by RFC 1242 [2], Section 3.13.  This rate SHOULD be reported
   individually for each application protocol present within the traffic
   mix.

4.2.  Application Throughput

4.2.1.  Objective

   To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to
   forward bits when using application flows as defined in the previous
   sections.

4.2.2.  Setup Parameters

   The following parameters MUST be defined and reported for all tests:

4.2.2.1.  Parameters

   The same parameters as described in Section 4.1.2 MUST be used.

4.2.3.  Procedure

   This test will attempt to send application flows through the device
   at a flow rate of 30% of the maximum, as observed in Section 4.1.
   This procedure MAY be repeated with the results from each iteration
   averaged together.

4.2.4.  Measurement

   The following metrics MAY be determined from this test, and SHOULD be
   observed for each application protocol within the traffic mix:

4.2.4.1.  Maximum Throughput

   The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
   application throughput.




Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


4.2.4.2.  Packet Loss

   The test tool SHOULD report the number of network packets lost or
   dropped from source to destination.

4.2.4.3.  Maximum Application Flow Rate

   The test tool SHOULD report the maximum rate at which application
   flows were completed, as defined by RFC 2647 [4], Section 3.7.  This
   rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol
   present within the traffic mix.

4.2.4.4.  Application Flow Duration

   The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average
   application duration, as defined by RFC 2647 [4], Section 3.9.  This
   duration SHOULD be reported individually for each application
   protocol present within the traffic mix.

4.2.4.5.  Packet Loss

   The test tool SHOULD report the number of flow packets lost or
   dropped from source to destination.

4.2.4.6.  Application Flow Latency

   The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average amount
   of time an application flow member takes to traverse the DUT, as
   defined by RFC 1242 [2], Section 3.13.  This rate SHOULD be reported
   individually for each application protocol present within the traffic
   mix.

4.3.  Malicious Traffic Handling

4.3.1.  Objective

   To determine the effects on performance that malicious traffic may
   have on the DUT.  While this test is not designed to characterize
   accuracy of detection or classification, it MAY be useful to record
   these measurements as specified below.

4.3.2.  Setup Parameters

4.3.2.1.  Parameters

   The same parameters as described in Section 4.1.2 MUST be used.

   Additionally, the following parameters MUST be defined and reported



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   for all tests:

   o  Attack List: A listing of the malicious traffic that was generated
      by the test.

4.3.3.  Procedure

   This test will utilize the procedures specified previously in
   Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2.3.  When performing the procedures
   listed previously, the tester should generate malicious traffic
   representative of the final network deployment.  The mix of attacks
   MAY include software vulnerability exploits, network worms, back-door
   access attempts, network probes and other malicious traffic.

   If a DUT may be run with and without the attack mitigation, both
   procedures SHOULD be run with and without the feature enabled on the
   DUT to determine the affects of the malicious traffic on the baseline
   metrics previously derived.  If a DUT does not have active attack
   mitigation capabilities, this procedure SHOULD be run regardless.
   Certain malicious traffic could affect device performance even if the
   DUT does not actively inspect packet data for malicious traffic.

4.3.4.  Measurement

   The metrics specified by Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.2.4 SHOULD be
   determined from this test.

4.4.  Malformed Traffic Handling

4.4.1.  Objective

   To determine the effects on performance and stability that malformed
   traffic may have on the DUT.

4.4.2.  Setup Parameters

   The same parameters must be used for Transport-Layer and Application
   Layer Parameters previously specified in Section 4.1.2 and
   Section 4.2.2.

4.4.3.  Procedure

   This test will utilize the procedures specified previously in
   Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2.3.  When performing the procedures
   listed previously, the tester should generate malformed traffic at
   all protocol layers.  This is commonly known as fuzzed traffic.
   Fuzzing techniques generally modify portions of packets, including
   checksum errors, invalid protocol options, and improper protocol



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   conformance.  This test SHOULD be run on a DUT regardless of whether
   it has built-in mitigation capabilities.

4.4.4.  Measurement

   For each protocol present in the traffic mix, the metrics specified
   by Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.2.4 MAY be determined.  This data may
   be used to ascertain the effects of fuzzed traffic on the DUT.


5.  Appendix A: Example Test Case

   This appendix shows an example case of a protocol mix that may be
   used with this methodology.





































Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


    +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------+
    |          Protocol         |         Label         |    Value    |
    +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------+
    |          Web 1kB          |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |     1kB     |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     15%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     TCP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |      80     |
    |          Web 10kB         |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |     10kB    |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     15%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     TCP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |      80     |
    |         Web 100kB         |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |    100kB    |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     15%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     TCP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |      80     |
    | BitTorrent Movie Download |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |    500 MB   |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |      5%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     TCP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |  6881-6889  |
    |         SMTP Email        |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |    50 kB    |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     10%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     TCP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |      25     |
    |         IMAP Email        |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |    100 kB   |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     15%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     TCP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |     143     |
    |            DNS            |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |     2 kB    |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     10%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     UDP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  |      53     |
    |            RTP            |                       |             |
    |                           |       Flow Size       |    100 mB   |
    |                           |    Flow Percentage    |     10%     |
    |                           | Transport Protocol(s) |     UDP     |
    |                           |  Destination Port(s)  | 20000-65535 |
    +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------+

                      Table 1: Sample Traffic Pattern





Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

   All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
   the update of RFC 2434 [8] for a guide).  If the draft does not
   require IANA to do anything, the section contains an explicit
   statement that this is the case (as above).  If there are no
   requirements for IANA, the section will be removed during conversion
   into an RFC by the RFC Editor.


7.  Security Considerations

   Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
   technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
   environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
   RFC 2544 [1].

   The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
   and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
   traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
   management network


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
        Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
        interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

   [3]  Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin,
        "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC 3511,
        April 2003.

   [4]  Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance",
        RFC 2647, August 1999.

   [5]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [6]  Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. Dugatkin,
        "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
        Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.



Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Content-Aware Devices        July 2011


   [7]  Brownlee, N., Mills, C., and G. Ruth, "Traffic Flow Measurement:
        Architecture", RFC 2722, October 1999.

8.2.  Informative References

   [8]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
        Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Mike Hamilton
   BreakingPoint Systems
   Austin, TX  78717
   US

   Phone: +1 512 636 2303
   Email: mhamilton@breakingpoint.com


   Sarah Banks
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: sabanks@cisco.com

























Hamilton & Banks        Expires January 12, 2012               [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/