[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Benchmarking Working Group                                       M. Kaeo
Internet-Draft                                      Double Shot Security
Expires: May 5, 2006                                        T. Van Herck
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           November 2005


               Methodology for Benchmarking IPsec Devices
                     draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   The purpose of this draft is to describe methodology specific to the
   benchmarking of IPsec IP forwarding devices.  It builds upon the
   tenets set forth in [RFC2544], [RFC2432] and other IETF Benchmarking
   Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This document seeks to
   extend these efforts to the IPsec paradigm.

   The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents.  The
   Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
   The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect
   the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Key Words to Reflect Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Test Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Test Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  Test Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  Frame Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       6.1.1.  IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       6.1.2.  UDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       6.1.3.  TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.2.  Frame Sizes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.4.  Time To Live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.5.  Trial Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.6.  Security Context Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.6.1.  IPsec Transform Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.6.2.  IPsec Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       6.6.3.  IKE Keepalives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       6.6.4.  IKE DH-group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       6.6.5.  IKE SA / IPsec SA Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.6.6.  IPsec Selectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  IKE SA Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  IPsec SA Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.1.  Throughput baseline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     8.2.  IPsec Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.3.  IPsec Encryption Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.4.  IPsec Decryption Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.5.  IPsec Fragmentation Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     8.6.  IPsec Reassembly Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Latency Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  IPsec Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     9.3.  IPsec Encryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     9.4.  IPsec Decryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   10. Time To First Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   11. Frame Loss Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     11.1. Frame Loss Baseline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     11.2. IPsec Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


     11.3. IPsec Encryption Frame Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     11.4. IPsec Decryption Frame Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.5. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   12. Back-to-back Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     12.1. Back-to-back Frames Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     12.2. IPsec Back-to-back Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     12.3. IPsec Encryption Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     12.4. IPsec Decryption Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   13. IPsec Tunnel Setup Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     13.1. IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     13.2. IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     13.3. IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   14. IPsec Rekey Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     14.1. IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     14.2. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   15. IPsec Tunnel Failover Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 38





























Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


1.  Introduction

   This document defines a specific set of tests that can be used to
   measure and report the performance characteristics of IPsec devices.
   It extends the methodology already defined for benchmarking network
   interconnecting devices in [RFC2544] to IPsec gateways and
   additionally introduces tests which can be used to measure end-host
   IPsec performance.


2.  Document Scope

   The primary focus of this document is to establish a performance
   testing methodology for IPsec devices that support manual keying and
   IKEv1.  Both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing will be taken into
   consideration for all relevant test methodologies.

   The testing will be constrained to:

   o  Devices acting as IPsec gateways whose tests will pertain to both
      IPsec tunnel and transport mode.

   o  Devices acting as IPsec end-hosts whose tests will pertain to both
      IPsec tunnel and transport mode.

   Note that special considerations will be presented for IPsec end-host
   testing since the tests cannot be conducted without introducing
   additional variables that may cause variations in test results.

   What is specifically out of scope is any testing that pertains to
   considerations involving NAT, L2TP [RFC2661], GRE [RFC2784], BGP/MPLS
   VPNs [RFC2547] and anything that does not specifically relate to the
   establishment and tearing down of IPsec tunnels.


3.  Key Words to Reflect 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 RFC 2119.  RFC 2119
   defines the use of these key words to help make the intent of
   standards track documents as clear as possible.  While this document
   uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track document.


4.  Test Considerations

   Before any of the IPsec data plane benchmarking tests are carried



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   out, a Baseline MUST be established.  I.e. the particular test in
   question must first be measured for performance characteristics
   without enabling IPsec.  Once both the Baseline clear text
   performance and the performance using an IPsec enabled datapath have
   been measured, the difference between the two can be discerned.

   This document explicitly assumes that you MUST follow logical
   performance test methodology that includes the pre-configuration of
   routing protocols, ARP caches, IPv6 neighbor discovery and all other
   extraneous IPv4 and IPv6 parameters required to pass packets before
   the tester is ready to send IPsec protected packets.  IPv6 nodes that
   implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] MUST ensure that the PMTUD
   process has been completed before any of the tests have been run.

   For every IPsec data plane benchmarking test, the SA database (SADB)
   MUST be created and populated with the appropriate SAs before any
   actual test traffic is sent, i.e. the DUT/SUT MUST have active
   tunnels.  This may require a manual command to be executed on the
   DUT/SUT or the sending of appropriate learning frames to the DUT/SUT.
   This is to ensure that none of the control plane parameters (such as
   IPsec tunnel setup rates and IPsec tunnel rekey rates) are factored
   into these tests.

   For control plane benchmarking tests (i.e.  IPsec tunnel setup rate
   and IPsec tunnel rekey rates), the authentication mechanisms(s) used
   for the authenticated Diffie-Hellman exchange MUST be reported.


5.  Test Topologies

   The tests can be performed as a DUT or SUT.  When the tests are
   performed as a DUT, the Tester itself must be an IPsec peer.  This
   scenario is shown in Figure 1.  When tested as a DUT where the Tester
   has to be an IPsec peer, the measurements have several disadvantages:

   o  The Tester can introduce interoperability issues and skew results.

   o  The measurements may not be accurate due to Tester inaccuracies.

   On the other hand, the measurement of a DUT where the Tester is an
   IPsec peer has two distinct advantages:

   o  IPsec client scenarios can be benchmarked.

   o  IPsec device encryption/decryption abnormalities may be
      identified.





Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


                              +------------+
                              |            |
                       +----[D]   Tester   [A]----+
                       |      |            |      |
                       |      +------------+      |
                       |                          |
                       |      +------------+      |
                       |      |            |      |
                       +----[C]    DUT     [B]----+
                              |            |
                              +------------+

   Figure 1: Topology 1

   The SUT scenario is depicted in Figure 2.  Two identical DUTs are
   used in this test set up which more accurately simulate the use of
   IPsec gateways.  IPsec SA (i.e.  AH/ESP transport or tunnel mode)
   configurations can be tested using this set-up where the tester is
   only required to send and receive cleartext traffic.

                              +------------+
                              |            |
          +-----------------[F]   Tester   [A]-----------------+
          |                   |            |                   |
          |                   +------------+                   |
          |                                                    |
          |      +------------+            +------------+      |
          |      |            |            |            |      |
          +----[E]    DUTa    [D]--------[C]    DUTb    [B]----+
                 |            |            |            |
                 +------------+            +------------+

   Figure 2: Topology 2

   When an IPsec DUT needs to be tested in a chassis failover topology,
   a second DUT needs to be used as shown in figure 3.  This is the
   high-availability equivalent of the topology as depicted in Figure 1.
   Note that in this topology the Tester MUST be an IPsec peer.













Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


                              +------------+
                              |            |
                  +---------[F]   Tester   [A]---------+
                  |           |            |           |
                  |           +------------+           |
                  |                                    |
                  |           +------------+           |
                  |           |            |           |
                  |    +----[C]    DUTa    [B]----+    |
                  |    |      |            |      |    |
                  |    |      +------------+      |    |
                  +----+                          +----+
                       |      +------------+      |
                       |      |            |      |
                       +----[E]    DUTb    [D]----+
                              |            |
                              +------------+

   Figure 3: Topology 3

   When no IPsec enabled Tester is available and an IPsec failover
   scenario needs to be tested, the topology as shown in Figure 4 can be
   used.  In this case, either the high availability pair of IPsec
   devices can be used as an Initiator or as a Responder.  The remaining
   chassis will take the opposite role.

                              +------------+
                              |            |
       +--------------------[H]   Tester   [A]----------------+
       |                      |            |                  |
       |                      +------------+                  |
       |                                                      |
       |         +------------+                               |
       |         |            |                               |
       |   +---[E]    DUTa    [D]---+                         |
       |   |     |            |     |      +------------+     |
       |   |     +------------+     |      |            |     |
       +---+                        +----[C]    DUTc    [B]---+
           |     +------------+     |      |            |
           |     |            |     |      +------------+
           +---[G]    DUTb    [F]---+
                 |            |
                 +------------+

   Figure 4: Topology 4






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


6.  Test Parameters

   For each individual test performed, all of the following parameters
   MUST be explicitly reported in any test results.

6.1.  Frame Type

6.1.1.  IP

   Both IPv4 and IPv6 frames MUST be used.  The basic IPv4 header is 20
   bytes long (which may be increased by the use of an options field).
   The basic IPv6 header is a fixed 40 bytes and uses an extension field
   for additional headers.  Only the basic headers plus the IPsec AH
   and/or ESP headers MUST be present.

   It is recommended that IPv4 and IPv6 frames be tested separately to
   ascertain performance parameters for either IPv4 or IPv6 traffic.  If
   both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic are to be tested, the device SHOULD be
   pre-configured for a dual-stack environment to handle both traffic
   types.

   IP traffic with L4 protocol set to 'reserved' (255) SHOULD be used.
   This ensures maximum space for instrumentation data in the payload
   section, even with framesizes of minimum allowed length on the
   transport media.

6.1.2.  UDP

   TBD

6.1.3.  TCP

   TBD

6.2.  Frame Sizes

   Each test SHOULD be run with different frame sizes.  The recommended
   plaintext layer 3 frame sizes for IPv4 tests are 64, 128, 256, 512,
   1024, 1280, and 1518 bytes, per RFC2544 section 9 [RFC2544].  The
   four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified.

   Since IPv6 requires that every link has an MTU of 1280 octets or
   greater, the plaintext frame sizes to test for IPv6 are 1280 and 1518
   bytes.

6.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly

   IPsec devices can and must fragment packets in specific scenarios.



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Depending on whether the fragmentation is performed in software or
   using specialized custom hardware, there may be a significant impact
   on performance.

   In IPv4, unless the DF (don't fragment) bit is set by the packet
   source, the sender cannot guarantee that some intermediary device on
   the way will not fragment an IPsec packet.  For transport mode IPsec,
   the peers must be able to fragment and reassemble IPsec packets.
   Reassembly of fragmented packets is especially important if an IPv4
   port selector (or IPv6 transport protocol selector) is configured.
   For tunnel mode IPsec, it is not a requirement.  Note that
   fragmentation is handled differently in IPv6 than in IPv4.  In IPv6
   networks, fragmentation is no longer done by intermediate routers in
   the networks, but by the source node that originates the packet.  The
   path MTU discovery (PMTUD) mechanism is recommended for every IPv6
   node to avoid fragmentation.

   Packets generated by hosts that do not support PMTUD, and have not
   set the DF bit in the IP header, will undergo fragmentation before
   IPsec encapsulation.  Packets generated by hosts that do support
   PMTUD will use it locally to match the statically configured MTU on
   the tunnel.  If you manually set the MTU on the tunnel, you must set
   it low enough to allow packets to pass through the smallest link on
   the path.  Otherwise, the packets that are too large to fit will be
   dropped.

   Fragmentation can occur due to encryption overhead and is closely
   linked to the choice of transform used.  Since each test SHOULD be
   run with a maximum cleartext frame size (as per the previous section)
   it will cause fragmentation to occur since the maximum frame size
   will be exceeded.  All tests MUST be run with the DF bit not set.  It
   is also recommended that all tests be run with the DF bit set.

   Note that some implementations predetermine the encapsulated packet
   size from information available in transform sets, which are
   configured as part of the IPsec security association (SA).  If it is
   predetermined that the packet will exceed the MTU of the output
   interface, the packet is fragmented before encryption.  This
   optimization may favorably impact performance and vendors SHOULD
   report whether any such optimization is configured.

6.4.  Time To Live

   The source frames should have a TTL value large enough to accommodate
   the DUT/SUT.  A Minimum TTL of 64 is RECOMMENDED.






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


6.5.  Trial Duration

   The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least 30
   seconds.  In the case of IPsec tunnel rekeying tests, the test
   duration must be at least two times the IPsec tunnel rekey time to
   ensure a reasonable worst case scenario test.

6.6.  Security Context Parameters

   All of the security context parameters listed in this section and
   used in any test MUST be reported.

6.6.1.  IPsec Transform Sets

   All tests should be done on different IPsec transform set
   combinations.  An IPsec transform specifies a single IPsec security
   protocol (either AH or ESP) with its corresponding security
   algorithms and mode.  A transform set is a combination of individual
   IPsec transforms designed to enact a specific security policy for
   protecting a particular traffic flow.  At minumim, the transform set
   must include one AH algorithm and a mode or one ESP algorithm and a
   mode, as shown in Table 1:

    +---------------+--------------+----------------------+-----------+
    | Transform Set | AH Algorithm |     ESP Algorithm    |    Mode   |
    +---------------+--------------+----------------------+-----------+
    |       1       |    AH-SHA1   |         None         |   Tunnel  |
    |       2       |    AH-SHA1   |         None         | Transport |
    |       3       |    AH-SHA1   |       ESP-3DES       |   Tunnel  |
    |       4       |    AH-SHA1   |       ESP-3DES       | Transport |
    |       5       |    AH-SHA1   |      ESP-AES128      |   Tunnel  |
    |       6       |    AH-SHA1   |      ESP-AES128      | Transport |
    |       7       |     None     |       ESP-3DES       |   Tunnel  |
    |       8       |     None     |  ESP-3DES-HMAC-SHA1  |   Tunnel  |
    |       9       |     None     |       ESP-3DES       | Transport |
    |       10      |     None     |  ESP-3DES-HMAC-SHA1  | Transport |
    |       11      |     None     |      ESP-AES128      |   Tunnel  |
    |       12      |     None     | ESP-AES128-HMAC-SHA1 |   Tunnel  |
    |       13      |     None     |      ESP-AES128      | Transport |
    |       14      |     None     | ESP-AES128-HMAC-SHA1 | Transport |
    +---------------+--------------+----------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 1

   Testing of all the transforms shown in Table 1 MUST be supported.
   Note that this table is derived from the updated IKEv1 requirements
   as described in [RFC4109].  Optionally, other AH and/or ESP
   transforms MAY be supported.



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


6.6.2.  IPsec Topologies

   All tests should be done at various IPsec topology configurations and
   the IPsec topology used MUST be reported.  Since IPv6 requires the
   implementation of manual keys for IPsec, both manual keying and IKE
   configurations MUST be tested.

   For manual keying tests, the IPsec SAs used should vary from 1 to
   101, increasing in increments of 50.  Although it is not expected
   that manual keying (i.e. manually configuring the IPsec SA) will be
   deployed in any operational setting with the exception of very small
   controlled environments (i.e. less than 10 nodes), it is prudent to
   test for potentially larger scale deployments.

   For IKE specific tests, the following IPsec topologies MUST be
   tested:

   o  1 IKE SA & 1 IPsec SA (i.e. 1 IPsec Tunnel)

   o  1 IKE SA & {max} IPsec SA's

   o  {max} IKE SA's & {max} IPsec SA's

   It is RECOMMENDED to also test with the following IPsec topologies in
   order to gain more datapoints:

   o  {max/2} IKE SA's & {(max/2) IKE SA's} IPsec SA's

   o  {max} IKE SA's & {(max) IKE SA's} IPsec SA's

6.6.3.  IKE Keepalives

   IKE keepalives track reachability of peers by sending hello packets
   between peers.  During the typical life of an IKE Phase 1 SA, packets
   are only exchanged over this IKE Phase 1 SA when an IPsec IKE Quick
   Mode (QM) negotiation is required at the expiration of the IPSec
   Tunnel SAs.  There is no standards-based mechanism for either type of
   SA to detect the loss of a peer, except when the QM negotiation
   fails.  Most IPsec implementations use the Dead Peer Detection (i.e.
   Keepalive) mechanism to determine whether connectivity has been lost
   with a peer before the expiration of the IPsec Tunnel SA's.

   All tests using IKEv1 MUST use the same IKE keepalive parameters.

6.6.4.  IKE DH-group

   There are 3 Diffie-Hellman groups which can be supported by IPsec
   standards compliant devices:



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   o  DH-group 1: 768 bits

   o  DH-group 2: 1024 bits

   o  DH-group 14: 2048 bits

   DH-group 2 MUST be tested, to support the new IKEv1 algorithm
   requirements listed in [RFC4109].  It is recommended that the same
   DH-group be used for both IKE Phase 1 and IKE phase 2.  All test
   methodologies using IKE MUST report which DH-group was configured to
   be used for IKE Phase 1 and IKE Phase 2 negotiations.

6.6.5.  IKE SA / IPsec SA Lifetime

   An IKE SA or IPsec SA is retained by each peer until the Tunnel
   lifetime expires.  IKE SA's and IPsec SA's have individual lifetime
   parameters.  In many real-world environments, the IPsec SA's will be
   configured with shorter lifetimes than that of the IKE SA's.  This
   will force a rekey to happen more often for IPsec SA's.

   When the initiator begins an IKE negotiation between itself and a
   remote peer (the responder), an IKE policy can be selected only if
   the lifetime of the responder's policy is shorter than or equal to
   the lifetime of the initiator's policy.  If the lifetimes are not the
   same, the shorter lifetime will be used.

   To avoid any incompatibilities in data plane benchmark testing, all
   devices MUST have the same IKE SA and IPsec SA lifetime configured
   and they must be configured to a time which exceeds the test duration
   timeframe or the total number of bytes to be transmitted during the
   test.

   Note that the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be equal to or less than the IKE
   SA lifetime.  Both the IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime used
   MUST be reported.  This parameter SHOULD be variable when testing IKE
   rekeying performance.

6.6.6.  IPsec Selectors

   All tests MUST be performed using standard IPsec selectors.


7.  Capacity

7.1.  IKE SA Capacity






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Objective:

      TBD

   Procedure:

      TBD

   Reporting Format:

      TBD

7.2.  IPsec SA Capacity

   Objective:

      TBD

   Procedure:

      TBD

   Reporting Format:

      TBD


8.  Throughput

   This section contains the description of the tests that are related
   to the characterization of the packet forwarding of a DUT/SUT in an
   IPsec environment.  Some metrics extend the concept of throughput
   presented in RFC 1242.  The notion of Forwarding Rate is cited in
   RFC2285.

   A separate test SHOULD be performed for Throughput tests using IPv4/
   UDP, IPv6/UDP, IPv4/TCP and IPv6/TCP traffic.

8.1.  Throughput baseline

   Objective:

      Measure the intrinsic cleartext throughput of a device without the
      use of IPsec.  The throughput baseline methodology and reporting
      format is derived from [RFC2544].






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of frames that matches the IPsec SA
      selector(s) to be tested at a specific rate through the DUT and
      then count the frames that are transmitted by the DUT.  If the
      count of offered frames is equal to the count of received frames,
      the rate of the offered stream is increased and the test is rerun.
      If fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the rate of
      the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.

      The throughput is the fastest rate at which the count of test
      frames transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number of test
      frames sent to it by the test equipment.

   Reporting Format:

      The results of the throughput test SHOULD be reported in the form
      of a graph.  If it is, the x coordinate SHOULD be the frame size,
      the y coordinate SHOULD be the frame rate.  There SHOULD be at
      least two lines on the graph.  There SHOULD be one line showing
      the theoretical frame rate for the media at the various frame
      sizes.  The second line SHOULD be the plot of the test results.
      Additional lines MAY be used on the graph to report the results
      for each type of data stream tested.  Text accompanying the graph
      SHOULD indicate the protocol, data stream format, and type of
      media used in the tests.

      We assume that if a single value is desired for advertising
      purposes the vendor will select the rate for the minimum frame
      size for the media.  If this is done then the figure MUST be
      expressed in packets per second.  The rate MAY also be expressed
      in bits (or bytes) per second if the vendor so desires.  The
      statement of performance MUST include:

      *  Measured maximum frame rate

      *  Size of the frame used

      *  Theoretical limit of the media for that frame size

      *  Type of protocol used in the test

      Even if a single value is used as part of the advertising copy,
      the full table of results SHOULD be included in the product data
      sheet.






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


8.2.  IPsec Throughput

   Objective:

      Measure the intrinsic throughput of a device utilizing IPsec.

   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of cleartext frames that match the IPsec SA
      selector(s) at a specific rate through the DUT/SUT.  DUTa will
      encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb which will in turn decrypt
      the traffic and forward to the testing device.  The testing device
      counts the frames that are transmitted by the DUTb.  If the count
      of offered frames is equal to the count of received frames, the
      rate of the offered stream is increased and the test is rerun.  If
      fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the rate of the
      offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.

      The IPsec Throughput is the fastest rate at which the count of
      test frames transmitted by the DUT/SUT is equal to the number of
      test frames sent to it by the test equipment.

      For tests using multiple IPsec SA's, the test traffic associated
      with the individual traffic selectors defined for each IPsec SA
      MUST be sent in a round robin type fashion to keep the test
      balanced so as not to overload any single IPsec SA.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 7.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 5.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

8.3.  IPsec Encryption Throughput

   Objective:

      Measure the intrinsic DUT vendor specific IPsec Encryption
      Throughput.

   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of cleartext frames that match the IPsec SA
      selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT.  The DUT will receive
      the cleartext frames, perform IPsec operations and then send the
      IPsec protected frame to the tester.  Upon receipt of the
      encrypted packet, the testing device will timestamp the packet(s)



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      and record the result.  If the count of offered frames is equal to
      the count of received frames, the rate of the offered stream is
      increased and the test is rerun.  If fewer frames are received
      than were transmitted, the rate of the offered stream is reduced
      and the test is rerun.

      The IPsec Encryption Throughput is the fastest rate at which the
      count of test frames transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number
      of test frames sent to it by the test equipment.

      For tests using multiple IPsec SA's, the test traffic associated
      with the individual traffic selectors defined for each IPsec SA
      MUST be sent in a round robin type fashion to keep the test
      balanced so as not to overload any single IPsec SA.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 7.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 5.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

8.4.  IPsec Decryption Throughput

   Objective:

      Measure the intrinsic DUT vendor specific IPsec Decryption
      Throughput.

   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of IPsec protected frames that match the
      IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT.  The DUT will
      receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec operations and
      then send the cleartext frame to the tester.  Upon receipt of the
      cleartext packet, the testing device will timestamp the packet(s)
      and record the result.  If the count of offered frames is equal to
      the count of received frames, the rate of the offered stream is
      increased and the test is rerun.  If fewer frames are received
      than were transmitted, the rate of the offered stream is reduced
      and the test is rerun.

      The IPsec Decryption Throughput is the fastest rate at which the
      count of test frames transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number
      of test frames sent to it by the test equipment.






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      For tests using multiple IPsec SAs, the test traffic associated
      with the individual traffic selectors defined for each IPsec SA
      MUST be sent in a round robin type fashion to keep the test
      balanced so as not to overload any single IPsec SA.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 7.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 5.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

8.5.  IPsec Fragmentation Throughput

   Objective:

      TBD

   Procedure:

      TBD

   Reporting format:

      TBD

8.6.  IPsec Reassembly Throughput

   Objective:

      TBD

   Procedure:

      TBD

   Reporting format:

      TBD


9.  Latency

   This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
   of the forwarding latency of a DUT/SUT.  It extends the concept of
   latency characterization presented in [RFC2544] to an IPsec
   environment.




Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   A separate tests SHOULD be performed for latency tests using IPv4/
   UDP, IPv6/UDP, IPv4/TCP and IPv6/TCP traffic.

   In order to lessen the effect of packet buffering in the DUT/SUT, the
   latency tests MUST be run at the measured IPsec throughput level of
   the DUT/SUT; IPsec latency at other offered loads is optional.

   Lastly, [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] draw distinction between two classes
   of devices: "store and forward" and "bit-forwarding".  Each class
   impacts how latency is collected and subsequently presented.  See the
   related RFCs for more information.  In practice, much of the test
   equipment will collect the latency measurement for one class or the
   other, and, if needed, mathematically derive the reported value by
   the addition or subtraction of values accounting for medium
   propagation delay of the packet, bit times to the timestamp trigger
   within the packet, etc.  Test equipment vendors SHOULD provide
   documentation regarding the composition and calculation latency
   values being reported.  The user of this data SHOULD understand the
   nature of the latency values being reported, especially when
   comparing results collected from multiple test vendors.  (E.g., If
   test vendor A presents a "store and forward" latency result and test
   vendor B presents a "bit-forwarding" latency result, the user may
   erroneously conclude the DUT has two differing sets of latency
   values.).

9.1.  Latency Baseline

   Objective:

      Measure the intrinsic latency (min/avg/max) introduced by a device
      without the use of IPsec.

   Procedure:

      First determine the throughput for the DUT/SUT at each of the
      listed frame sizes.  Send a stream of frames at a particular frame
      size through the DUT at the determined throughput rate using
      frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.  The
      stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration.  An identifying
      tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds with the type
      of tag being implementation dependent.  The time at which this
      frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).  The
      receiver logic in the test equipment MUST recognize the tag
      information in the frame stream and record the time at which the
      tagged frame was received (timestamp B).






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      The latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as per the relevant
      definition from RFC 1242, namely latency as defined for store and
      forward devices or latency as defined for bit forwarding devices.

      The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
      value being the average of the recorded values.

   Reporting Format

      The report MUST state which definition of latency (from [RFC1242])
      was used for this test.  The latency results SHOULD be reported in
      the format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame
      sizes.  There SHOULD be columns for the frame size, the rate at
      which the latency test was run for that frame size, for the media
      types tested, and for the resultant latency values for each type
      of data stream tested.

9.2.  IPsec Latency

   Objective:

      Measure the intrinsic IPsec Latency (min/avg/max) introduced by a
      device when using IPsec.

   Procedure:

      First determine the throughput for the DUT/SUT at each of the
      listed frame sizes.  Send a stream of cleartext frames at a
      particular frame size through the DUT/SUT at the determined
      throughput rate using frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s)
      to be tested.  DUTa will encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb
      which will in turn decrypt the traffic and forward to the testing
      device.

      The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration.  An
      identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
      with the type of tag being implementation dependent.  The time at
      which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).
      The receiver logic in the test equipment MUST recognize the tag
      information in the frame stream and record the time at which the
      tagged frame was received (timestamp B).

      The IPsec Latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as per the
      relevant definition from [RFC1242], namely latency as defined for
      store and forward devices or latency as defined for bit forwarding
      devices.





Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
      value being the average of the recorded values.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 8.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 5.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

9.3.  IPsec Encryption Latency

   Objective:

      Measure the DUT vendor specific IPsec Encryption Latency for IPsec
      protected traffic.

   Procedure:

      Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame size
      through the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate using frames
      that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.

      The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration.  An
      identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
      with the type of tag being implementation dependent.  The time at
      which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).
      The DUT will receive the cleartext frames, perform IPsec
      operations and then send the IPsec protected frames to the tester.
      Upon receipt of the encrypted frames, the receiver logic in the
      test equipment MUST recognize the tag information in the frame
      stream and record the time at which the tagged frame was received
      (timestamp B).

      The IPsec Encryption Latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as
      per the relevant definition from [RFC1242], namely latency as
      defined for store and forward devices or latency as defined for
      bit forwarding devices.

      The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
      value being the average of the recorded values.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 8.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 5.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


9.4.  IPsec Decryption Latency

   Objective:

      Measure the DUT Vendor Specific IPsec Decryption Latency for IPsec
      protected traffic.

   Procedure:

      Send a stream of IPsec protected frames at a particular frame size
      through the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate using frames
      that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.

      The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration.  An
      identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
      with the type of tag being implementation dependent.  The time at
      which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).
      The DUT will receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec
      operations and then send the cleartext frames to the tester.  Upon
      receipt of the decrypted frames, the receiver logic in the test
      equipment MUST recognize the tag information in the frame stream
      and record the time at which the tagged frame was received
      (timestamp B).

      The IPsec Decryption Latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as
      per the relevant definition from [RFC1242], namely latency as
      defined for store and forward devices or latency as defined for
      bit forwarding devices.

      The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
      value being the average of the recorded values.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 8.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 5.6 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.


10.  Time To First Packet

   Objective:

      Measure the time it takes to transmit a packet when no SAs have
      been established.





Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Procedure:

      Determine the IPsec throughput for the DUT/SUT at each of the
      listed frame sizes.  Start with a DUT/SUT with Configured Tunnels.
      Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame size
      through the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate using frames
      that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to be tested.

      The time at which the first frame is fully transmitted from the
      testing device is recorded as timestamp A. The time at which the
      testing device receives its first frame from the DUT/SUT is
      recorded as timestamp B. The Time To First Packet is the
      difference between Timestamp B and Timestamp A.

   Reporting format:

      The Time To First Packet results SHOULD be reported in the format
      of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes.  There
      SHOULD be columns for the frame size, the rate at which the TTFP
      test was run for that frame size, for the media types tested, and
      for the resultant TTFP values for each type of data stream tested.
      The Security Context parameters defined in 5.6 and utilized for
      this test MUST be included in any statement of performance.


11.  Frame Loss Rate

   This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
   of frame loss rate, as defined in [RFC1242], in an IPsec environment.

11.1.  Frame Loss Baseline

   Objective:

      To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in [RFC1242], of a
      DUT/SUT throughout the entire range of input data rates and frame
      sizes without the use of IPsec.

   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of frames at a specific rate through the
      DUT/SUT to be tested using frames that match the IPsec SA
      selector(s) to be tested and count the frames that are transmitted
      by the DUT/SUT.  The frame loss rate at each point is calculated
      using the following equation:






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      ( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count

      The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
      to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
      Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
      maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate.  This sequence
      SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are
      two successive trials in which no frames are lost.  The maximum
      granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
      granularity is encouraged.

   Reporting Format:

      The results of the frame loss rate test SHOULD be plotted as a
      graph.  If this is done then the X axis MUST be the input frame
      rate as a percent of the theoretical rate for the media at the
      specific frame size.  The Y axis MUST be the percent loss at the
      particular input rate.  The left end of the X axis and the bottom
      of the Y axis MUST be 0 percent; the right end of the X axis and
      the top of the Y axis MUST be 100 percent.  Multiple lines on the
      graph MAY used to report the frame loss rate for different frame
      sizes, protocols, and types of data streams.

11.2.  IPsec Frame Loss

   Objective:

      To measure the frame loss rate of a device when using IPsec to
      protect the data flow.

   Procedure:

      Ensure that the DUT/SUT is in active tunnel mode.  Send a specific
      number of cleartext frames that match the IPsec SA selector(s) to
      be tested at a specific rate through the DUT/SUT.  DUTa will
      encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb which will in turn decrypt
      the traffic and forward to the testing device.  The testing device
      counts the frames that are transmitted by the DUTb.  The frame
      loss rate at each point is calculated using the following
      equation:

      ( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count

      The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
      to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
      Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
      maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate.  This sequence
      SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      two successive trials in which no frames are lost.  The maximum
      granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
      granularity is encouraged.

   Reporting Format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 10.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

11.3.  IPsec Encryption Frame Loss

   Objective:

      To measure the effect of IPsec encryption on the frame loss rate
      of a device.

   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of cleartext frames that match the IPsec SA
      selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT.  The DUT will receive
      the cleartext frames, perform IPsec operations and then send the
      IPsec protected frame to the tester.  The testing device counts
      the encrypted frames that are transmitted by the DUT.  The frame
      loss rate at each point is calculated using the following
      equation:

      ( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count

      The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
      to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
      Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
      maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate.  This sequence
      SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are
      two successive trials in which no frames are lost.  The maximum
      granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
      granularity is encouraged.

   Reporting Format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 10.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


11.4.  IPsec Decryption Frame Loss

   Objective:

      To measure the effects of IPsec encryption on the frame loss rate
      of a device.

   Procedure:

      Send a specific number of IPsec protected frames that match the
      IPsec SA selector(s) at a specific rate to the DUT.  The DUT will
      receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec operations and
      then send the cleartext frames to the tester.  The testing device
      counts the cleartext frames that are transmitted by the DUT.  The
      frame loss rate at each point is calculated using the following
      equation:

      ( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count

      The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds
      to 100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
      Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
      maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate.  This sequence
      SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are
      two successive trials in which no frames are lost.  The maximum
      granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
      granularity is encouraged.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 10.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

11.5.  IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss

   Objective:

      To measure the frame loss due to an IKE Phase 2 (i.e.  IPsec SA)
      Rekey event.

   Procedure:

      The procedure is the same as in 10.2 with the exception that the
      IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured to be one-third of the trial
      test duration or one-third of the total number of bytes to be
      transmitted during the trial duration.



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 10.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.


12.  Back-to-back Frames

   This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
   of back-to-back frame processing, as defined in [RFC1242], in an
   IPsec environment.

12.1.  Back-to-back Frames Baseline

   Objective:

      To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-back
      frames as defined in [RFC1242], without the use of IPsec.

   Procedure:

      Send a burst of frames that matches the IPsec SA selector(s) to be
      tested with minimum inter-frame gaps to the DUT and count the
      number of frames forwarded by the DUT.  If the count of
      transmitted frames is equal to the number of frames forwarded the
      length of the burst is increased and the test is rerun.  If the
      number of forwarded frames is less than the number transmitted,
      the length of the burst is reduced and the test is rerun.

      The back-to-back value is the number of frames in the longest
      burst that the DUT will handle without the loss of any frames.
      The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated
      at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being
      reported.

   Reporting format:

      The back-to-back results SHOULD be reported in the format of a
      table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes.  There SHOULD
      be columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame
      count for each type of data stream tested.  The standard deviation
      for each measurement MAY also be reported.







Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


12.2.  IPsec Back-to-back Frames

   Objective:

      To measure the back-to-back frame processing rate of a device when
      using IPsec to protect the data flow.

   Procedure:

      Send a burst of cleartext frames that matches the IPsec SA
      selector(s) to be tested with minimum inter-frame gaps to the DUT/
      SUT.  DUTa will encrypt the traffic and forward to DUTb which will
      in turn decrypt the traffic and forward to the testing device.
      The testing device counts the frames that are transmitted by the
      DUTb.  If the count of transmitted frames is equal to the number
      of frames forwarded the length of the burst is increased and the
      test is rerun.  If the number of forwarded frames is less than the
      number transmitted, the length of the burst is reduced and the
      test is rerun.

      The back-to-back value is the number of frames in the longest
      burst that the DUT/SUT will handle without the loss of any frames.
      The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated
      at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being
      reported.

   Reporting Format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 11.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

12.3.  IPsec Encryption Back-to-back Frames

   Objective:

      To measure the effect of IPsec encryption on the back-to-back
      frame processing rate of a device.

   Procedure:

      Send a burst of cleartext frames that matches the IPsec SA
      selector(s) to be tested with minimum inter-frame gaps to the DUT.
      The DUT will receive the cleartext frames, perform IPsec
      operations and then send the IPsec protected frame to the tester.
      The testing device counts the encrypted frames that are
      transmitted by the DUT.  If the count of transmitted encrypted



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      frames is equal to the number of frames forwarded the length of
      the burst is increased and the test is rerun.  If the number of
      forwarded frames is less than the number transmitted, the length
      of the burst is reduced and the test is rerun.

      The back-to-back value is the number of frames in the longest
      burst that the DUT will handle without the loss of any frames.
      The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated
      at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being
      reported.

   Reporting format:

      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 11.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.

12.4.  IPsec Decryption Back-to-back Frames

   Objective:

      To measure the effect of IPsec decryption on the back-to-back
      frame processing rate of a device.

   Procedure:

      Send a burst of cleartext frames that matches the IPsec SA
      selector(s) to be tested with minimum inter-frame gaps to the DUT.
      The DUT will receive the IPsec protected frames, perform IPsec
      operations and then send the cleartext frame to the tester.  The
      testing device counts the frames that are transmitted by the DUT.
      If the count of transmitted frames is equal to the number of
      frames forwarded the length of the burst is increased and the test
      is rerun.  If the number of forwarded frames is less than the
      number transmitted, the length of the burst is reduced and the
      test is rerun.

      The back-to-back value is the number of frames in the longest
      burst that the DUT will handle without the loss of any frames.
      The trial length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated
      at least 50 times with the average of the recorded values being
      reported.

   Reporting format:






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed in 11.1 with the
      additional requirement that the Security Context parameters
      defined in 6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any
      statement of performance.


13.  IPsec Tunnel Setup Behavior

13.1.  IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate

   Objective:

      Determine the rate at which IPsec Tunnels can be established.

   Procedure:

      Configure the DUT/SUT with n IKE Phase 1 and corresponding IKE
      Phase 2 policies.  Ensure that no SA's are established and that
      the DUT/SUT is in configured tunnel mode for all n policies.  Send
      a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame size through
      the DUT/SUT at the determined throughput rate using frames with
      selectors matching the first IKE Phase 1 policy.  As soon as the
      testing device receives its first frame from the DUT/SUT, it knows
      that the IPsec Tunnel is established and starts sending the next
      stream of cleartext frames using the same frame size and
      throughput rate but this time using selectors matching the second
      IKE Phase 1 policy.  This process is repeated until all configured
      IPsec Tunnels have been established.

      The IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate is determined by the following
      formula:

      Tunnel Setup Rate = n / [Duration of Test - (n *
      frame_transmit_time)]

      The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
      to exceed the duration of the test time.  It is RECOMMENDED that
      n=100 IPsec Tunnels are tested at a minimum to get a large enough
      sample size to depict some real-world behavior.

   Reporting Format:

      The Tunnel Setup Rate results SHOULD be reported in the format of
      a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes.  There
      SHOULD be columns for the frame size, the rate at which the test
      was run for that frame size, for the media types tested, and for
      the resultant Tunnel Setup Rate values for each type of data
      stream tested.  The Security Context parameters defined in 6.7 and



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement of
      performance.

13.2.  IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate

   Objective:

      Determine the rate of IKE SA's that can be established.

   Procedure:

      Configure the DUT with n IKE Phase 1 and corresponding IKE Phase 2
      policies.  Ensure that no SAs are established and that the DUT is
      in configured tunnel mode for all n policies.  Send a stream of
      cleartext frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the
      determined throughput rate using frames with selectors matching
      the first IKE Phase 1 policy.  As soon as the Phase 1 SA is
      established, the testing device starts sending the next stream of
      cleartext frames using the same frame size and throughput rate but
      this time using selectors matching the second IKE Phase 1 policy.
      This process is repeated until all configured IKE SAs have been
      established.

      The IKE SA Setup Rate is determined by the following formula:

      IKE SA Setup Rate = n / [Duration of Test - (n *
      frame_transmit_time)]

      The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
      to exceed the duration of the test time.  It is RECOMMENDED that
      n=100 IKE SAs are tested at a minumum to get a large enough sample
      size to depict some real-world behavior.

   Reporting Format:

      The IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate results SHOULD be reported in the
      format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes.
      There SHOULD be columns for the frame size, the rate at which the
      test was run for that frame size, for the media types tested, and
      for the resultant IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate values for each type of
      data stream tested.  The Security Context parameters defined in
      6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement
      of performance.

13.3.  IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   Objective:

      Determine the rate of IPsec SA's that can be established.

   Procedure:

      Configure the DUT with a single IKE Phase 1 policy and n
      corresponding IKE Phase 2 policies.  Ensure that no SAs are
      established and that the DUT is in configured tunnel mode for all
      policies.  Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular frame
      size through the DUT at the determined throughput rate using
      frames with selectors matching the first IPsec SA policy.

      The time at which the IKE SA is established is recorded as
      timestamp A. As soon as the Phase 1 SA is established, the IPsec
      SA negotiation will be initiated.  Once the first IPsec SA has
      been established, start sending the next stream of cleartext
      frames using the same frame size and throughput rate but this time
      using selectors matching the second IKE Phase 2 policy.  This
      process is repeated until all configured IPsec SA's have been
      established.

      The IPsec SA Setup Rate is determined by the following formula:

      IPsec SA Setup Rate = n / [Duration of Test - {A +((n-1) *
      frame_transmit_time)}]

      The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
      to exceed the duration of the test time.  It is RECOMMENDED that
      n=100 IPsec SAs are tested at a minumum to get a large enough
      sample size to depict some real-world behavior.

   Reporting Format:

      The IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate results SHOULD be reported in the
      format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes.
      There SHOULD be columns for the frame size, the rate at which the
      test was run for that frame size, for the media types tested, and
      for the resultant IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate values for each type of
      data stream tested.  The Security Context parameters defined in
      6.7 and utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement
      of performance.


14.  IPsec Rekey Behavior






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


14.1.  IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate

   Objective:

      Determine the maximum rate at which an IPsec Device can rekey IKE
      SA's.

   Procedure:

      Set up a number of Active IPsec Tunnels each with an IKE SA
      lifetime set to one-half of the test duration time.  Send a stream
      of cleartext frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at
      the determined throughput rate using frames with selectors
      matching each of the IPsec Tunnels.  Record the time at which the
      first IKE SA rekey is initiated.

   Reporting Format:

      TBD

14.2.  IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate

   Objective:

      Determine the maximum rate at which an IPsec Device can rekey
      IPsec SA's.

   Procedure:

      TBD

   Reporting Format:

      TBD


15.  IPsec Tunnel Failover Time

   This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
   of the failover behavior of a DUT/SUT in a IPsec environment.

   In order to lessen the effect of packet buffering in the DUT/SUT, the
   Tunnel Failover Time tests MUST be run at the measured IPsec
   throughput level of the DUT.  Tunnel Failover Time tests at other
   offered constant loads are OPTIONAL.

   Tunnel Failovers can be achieved in various ways like :




Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   o  Failover between two or more software instances of an IPsec stack.

   o  Failover between two IPsec devices.

   o  Failover between two or more crypto engines.

   o  Failover between hardware and software crypto.

   In all of the above cases there shall be at least one active IPsec
   device and a standby device.  In some cases the standby device is not
   present and two or more IPsec devices are backing eachother up in
   case of a catastrophic device or stack failure.  The standby (or
   potential other active) IPsec Devices can back up the active IPsec
   Device in either a stateless or statefull method.  In the former
   case, Phase 1 SA's as well as Phase 2 SA's will need to be re-
   established in order to guarantuee packet forwarding.  In the latter
   case, the SPD and SADB of the active IPsec Device is synchronized to
   the standby IPsec Device to ensure immediate packet path recovery.

   Objective:

      Determine the time required to fail over all Active Tunnels from
      an active IPsec Device to its standby device.

   Procedure:

      Before a failover can be triggered, the IPsec Device has to be in
      a state where the active stack/engine/node has a the maximum
      supported number of Active Tunnnels.  The Tunnels will be
      transporting bidirectional traffic at the Tunnel Throughput rate
      for the smallest framesize that the stack/engine/node is capable
      of forwarding (In most cases, this will be 64 Bytes).  The traffic
      should traverse in a round robin fashion through all Active
      Tunnels.

      It is RECOMMENDED that the test is repeated for various number of
      Active Tunnels as well as for different framesizes and framerates.

      When traffic is flowing through all Active Tunnels in steady
      state, a failover shall be triggered.

      Both receiver sides of the testers will now look at sequence
      counters in the instrumented packets that are being forwarded
      through the Tunnels.  Each Tunnel MUST have it's own counter to
      keep track of packetloss on a per SA basis.






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


      If the tester observes no sequence number drops on any of the
      Tunnels in both directions then the Failover Time MUST be listed
      as 'null', indicating that the failover was immediate and without
      any packetloss.

      In all other cases where the tester observes a gap in the sequence
      numbers of the instrumented payload of the packets, the tester
      will monitor all SA's and look for any Tunnels that are still not
      receiving packets after the Failover.  These will be marked as
      'pending' Tunnels.  Active Tunnels that are forwarding packets
      again without any packetloss shall be marked as 'recovered'
      Tunnels.  In background the tester will keep monitoring all SA's
      to make sure that no packets are dropped.  If this is the case
      then the Tunnel in question will be placed back in 'pending'
      state.

      Note that reordered packets can naturally occur after en/
      decryption.  This is not a valid reason to place a Tunnel back in
      'pending' state.  A sliding window of 128 packets per SA SHALL be
      allowed before packetloss is declared on the SA.

      The tester will wait until all Tunnel are marked as 'recovered'.
      Then it will find the SA with the largest gap in sequence number.
      Given the fact that the framesize is fixed and the time of that
      framesize can easily be calculated for the initiator links, a
      simple multiplication of the framesize time * largest packetloss
      gap will yield the Tunnel Failover Time.

      If the tester never reaches a state where all Tunnels are marked
      as 'recovered', the the Failover Time MUST be listed as
      'infinite'.

   Reporting Format:

      The results shall be represented in a tabular format, where the
      first column will list the number of Active Tunnels, the second
      column the Framesize, the third column the Framerate and the
      fourth column the Tunnel Failover Time in milliseconds.


16.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the following individual for
   their help and participation of the compilation and editing of this
   document: Michele Bustos, Ixia. ; Paul Hoffman, VPNC


17.  References



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


17.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
              interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2285]  Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
              Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.

   [RFC2393]  Shacham, A., Monsour, R., Pereira, R., and M. Thomas, "IP
              Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 2393,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2401]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [RFC2402]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
              RFC 2402, November 1998.

   [RFC2403]  Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within
              ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998.

   [RFC2404]  Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
              ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.

   [RFC2405]  Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher
              Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998.

   [RFC2406]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
              Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [RFC2407]  Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
              Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

   [RFC2408]  Maughan, D., Schneider, M., and M. Schertler, "Internet
              Security Association and Key Management Protocol
              (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998.

   [RFC2409]  Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
              (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [RFC2410]  Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
              Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998.



Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


   [RFC2411]  Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
              Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.

   [RFC2412]  Orman, H., "The OAKLEY Key Determination Protocol",
              RFC 2412, November 1998.

   [RFC2432]  Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking",
              RFC 2432, October 1998.

   [RFC2451]  Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher
              Algorithms", RFC 2451, November 1998.

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

   [RFC2547]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547,
              March 1999.

   [RFC2661]  Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn,
              G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"",
              RFC 2661, August 1999.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              March 2000.

   [RFC4109]  Hoffman, P., "Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version
              1 (IKEv1)", RFC 4109, May 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-ipsec-ikev2]
              Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17 (work in progress),
              October 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-ipsec-properties]
              Krywaniuk, A., "Security Properties of the IPsec Protocol
              Suite", draft-ietf-ipsec-properties-02 (work in progress),
              July 2002.

17.2.  Informative References

   [FIPS.186-1.1998]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital
              Signature Standard", FIPS PUB 186-1, December 1998,
              <http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fips1861.pdf>.






Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Merike Kaeo
   Double Shot Security
   520 Washington Blvd #363
   Marina Del Rey, CA  90292
   US

   Phone: +1 (310)866-0165
   Email: kaeo@merike.com


   Tim Van Herck
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
   US

   Email: herckt@cisco.com
































Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology       November 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Kaeo & Van Herck           Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 38]


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