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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Benchmarking Working Group                                       M. Kaeo
Internet-Draft                                      Double Shot Security
Intended status: Informational                              T. Van Herck
Expires: January 29, 2010                                  Cisco Systems
                                                           July 28, 2009


               Methodology for Benchmarking IPsec Devices
                     draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-05

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   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 January 29, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


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

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
   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.
































Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Methodology Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Key Words to Reflect Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Test Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Test Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  Test Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.1.  Frame Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       7.1.1.  IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       7.1.2.  UDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       7.1.3.  TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       7.1.4.  NAT-Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.2.  Frame Sizes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.4.  Time To Live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.5.  Trial Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.6.  Security Context Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       7.6.1.  IPsec Transform Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       7.6.2.  IPsec Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       7.6.3.  IKE Keepalives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.6.4.  IKE DH-group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.6.5.  IKE SA / IPsec SA Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.6.6.  IPsec Selectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       7.6.7.  NAT-Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.1.  IPsec Tunnel Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.2.  IPsec SA Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Throughput baseline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.2.  IPsec Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.3.  IPsec Encryption Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     9.4.  IPsec Decryption Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   10. Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.1. Latency Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     10.2. IPsec Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     10.3. IPsec Encryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     10.4. IPsec Decryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     10.5. Time To First Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   11. Frame Loss Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.1. Frame Loss Baseline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.2. IPsec Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     11.3. IPsec Encryption Frame Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     11.4. IPsec Decryption Frame Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     11.5. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   12. IPsec Tunnel Setup Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     12.1. IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


     12.2. IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     12.3. IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   13. IPsec Rekey Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     13.1. IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     13.2. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   14. IPsec Tunnel Failover Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   15. DoS Attack Resiliency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     15.1. Phase 1 DoS Resiliency Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     15.2. Phase 2 Hash Mismatch DoS Resiliency Rate  . . . . . . . . 37
     15.3. Phase 2 Anti Replay Attack DoS Resiliency Rate . . . . . . 37
   16. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   17. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
     18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
     18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41



































Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


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.  A seperate document will be written specifically to address
   testing using the updated IKEv2 specification.  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.

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


3.  Methodology Format

   The Methodology is described in the following format:

   Objective:  The reason for performing the test.

   Topology:  Physical test layout to be used as further clarified in
      Section 6.

   Procedure:  Describes the method used for carrying out the test.

   Reporting Format:  Description of reporting of the test results.






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


4.  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.


5.  Test Considerations

   Before any of the IPsec data plane benchmarking tests are carried
   out, a baseline MUST be established. (i.e. the particular test in
   question must first be executed to measure its performance 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 or
   pre-population 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 SA's before any
   actual test traffic is sent, i.e. the DUT/SUT MUST have Active
   Tunnels.  This may require manual commands to be executed on the DUT/
   SUT or the sending of appropriate learning frames to the DUT/SUT to
   trigger IKE negotiation.  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.


6.  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 testing an IPsec Device as a
   DUT, one considerations that needs to be take into account is that



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   the Tester can introduce interoperability issues potentially limiting
   the scope of the tests that can be executed.  On the other hand, this
   method has the advantage that IPsec client side testing can be
   performed as well as it is able to identify abnormalities and
   assymetry between the encryption and decryption behavior.

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

                   Figure 1: Device Under Test Topology

   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: System Under Test Topology

   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 January 29, 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


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

              Figure 3: Redundant Device Under Test Topology

   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: Redundant System Under Test Topology






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


7.  Test Parameters

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

7.1.  Frame Type

7.1.1.  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.

   It is RECOMMENDED that a test payload field is added in the payload
   of each packet that allows flow identification and timestamping of a
   received packet.

7.1.2.  UDP

   It is also RECOMMENDED that the test is executed using UDP as the L4
   protocol.  When using UDP, instrumentation data SHOULD be present in
   the payload of the packet.  It is OPTIONAL to have application
   payload.

7.1.3.  TCP

   It is OPTIONAL to perform the tests with TCP as the L4 protocol but
   in case this is considered, the TCP traffic is RECOMMENDED to be
   stateful.  With a TCP as a L4 header it is possible that there will
   not be enough room to add all instrumentation data to identify the
   packets within the DUT/SUT.

7.1.4.  NAT-Traversal

   It is RECOMMENDED to test the scenario where IPsec protected traffic
   must traverse network address translation (NAT) gateways.  This is
   commonly referred to as Nat-Traversal and requires UDP encapsulation.






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


7.2.  Frame Sizes

   Each test MUST be run with different frame sizes.  It is RECOMMENDED
   to use teh following cleartext layer 2 frame sizes for IPv4 tests
   over Ethernet media: 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.

   For GigabitEthernet, supporting jumboframes, the cleartext layer 2
   framesizes used are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048, 3072,
   4096, 5120, 6144, 7168, 8192, 9234 bytes

   For SONET these are: 47, 67, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048,
   4096 bytes

   To accomodate IEEE 802.1q and IEEE 802.3as it is RECOMMENDED to
   respectively include 1522 and 2000 byte framesizes in all tests.

   Since IPv6 requires that every link has an MTU of 1280 octets or
   greater, it is MANDATORY to execute tests with cleartext layer 2
   frame sizes that include 1280 and 1518 bytes.  It is RECOMMENDED that
   additional frame sizes are included in the IPv6 test execution,
   including the maximum supported datagram size for the linktype used.

7.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly

   IPsec devices can and must fragment packets in specific scenarios.
   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



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   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.

7.4.  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.

7.5.  Trial Duration

   The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least 60
   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.

7.6.  Security Context Parameters

   All of the security context parameters listed in section 7.13 of the
   IPsec Benchmarking Terminology document MUST be reported.  When
   merely discussing the behavior of traffic flows through IPsec
   devices, an IPsec context MUST be provided.  In the cases where IKE
   is configured (as opposed to using manually keyed tunnels), both an
   IPsec and an IKE context MUST be provided.  Additional considerations
   for reporting security context parameters are detailed below.  These
   all MUST be reported.

7.6.1.  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.






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   +-------------+------------------+----------------------+-----------+
   |     ESP     |    Encryption    |    Authentication    |    Mode   |
   |  Transform  |     Algorithm    |       Algorithm      |           |
   +-------------+------------------+----------------------+-----------+
   |      1      |       NULL       |     HMAC-SHA1-96     | Transport |
   |      2      |       NULL       |     HMAC-SHA1-96     |   Tunnel  |
   |      3      |     3DES-CBC     |     HMAC-SHA1-96     | Transport |
   |      4      |     3DES-CBC     |     HMAC-SHA1-96     |   Tunnel  |
   |      5      |    AES-CBC-128   |     HMAC-SHA1-96     | Transport |
   |      6      |    AES-CBC-128   |     HMAC-SHA1-96     |   Tunnel  |
   |      7      |       NULL       |    AES-XCBC-MAC-96   | Transport |
   |      8      |       NULL       |    AES-XCBC-MAC-96   |   Tunnel  |
   |      9      |     3DES-CBC     |    AES-XCBC-MAC-96   | Transport |
   |      10     |     3DES-CBC     |    AES-XCBC-MAC-96   |   Tunnel  |
   |      11     |    AES-CBC-128   |    AES-XCBC-MAC-96   | Transport |
   |      12     |    AES-CBC-128   |    AES-XCBC-MAC-96   |   Tunnel  |
   +-------------+------------------+----------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 1

   Testing of ESP Transforms 1-4 MUST be supported.  Testing of ESP
   Transforms 5-12 SHOULD be supported.

          +--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
          | AH Transform | Authentication Algorithm |    Mode   |
          +--------------+--------------------------+-----------+
          |       1      |       HMAC-SHA1-96       | Transport |
          |       2      |       HMAC-SHA1-96       |   Tunnel  |
          |       3      |      AES-XBC-MAC-96      | Transport |
          |       4      |      AES-XBC-MAC-96      |   Tunnel  |
          +--------------+--------------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 2

   If AH is supported by the DUT/SUT testing of AH Transforms 1 and 2
   MUST be supported.  Testing of AH Transforms 3 And 4 SHOULD be
   supported.

   Note that this these tables are derived from the Cryptographic
   Algorithms for AH and ESP requirements as described in [RFC4305].
   Optionally, other AH and/or ESP transforms MAY be supported.










Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


                   +-----------------------+----+-----+
                   | Transform Combination | AH | ESP |
                   +-----------------------+----+-----+
                   |           1           |  1 |  1  |
                   |           2           |  2 |  2  |
                   |           3           |  1 |  3  |
                   |           4           |  2 |  4  |
                   +-----------------------+----+-----+

                                  Table 3

   It is RECOMMENDED that the transforms shown in Table 3 be supported
   for IPv6 traffic selectors since AH may be used with ESP in these
   environments.  Since AH will provide the overall authentication and
   integrity, the ESP Authentication algorithm MUST be Null for these
   tests.  Optionally, other combined AH/ESP transform sets MAY be
   supported.

7.6.2.  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 SA's 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 & 2 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




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


7.6.3.  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 SA's.  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.

7.6.4.  IKE DH-group

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

   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.

7.6.5.  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 lifetime as well as an identical
   IPsec SA lifetime configured.  Both SHALL be configured to a time



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   which exceeds the test duration timeframe and 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.

7.6.6.  IPsec Selectors

   All tests MUST be performed using standard IPsec selectors as
   described in [RFC2401] section 4.4.2.

7.6.7.  NAT-Traversal

   For any tests that include network address translation
   considerations, the use of NAT-T in the test environment MUST be
   recorded.


8.  Capacity

8.1.  IPsec Tunnel Capacity

   Objective:  Measure the maximum number of IPsec Tunnels or Active
      Tunnels that can be sustained on an IPsec Device.

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.

   Procedure:  The IPsec Device under test initially MUST NOT have any
      Active IPsec Tunnels.  The Initiator (either a tester or an IPsec
      peer) will start the negotiation of an IPsec Tunnel (a single
      Phase 1 SA and a pair Phase 2 SA's).

      After it is detected that the tunnel is established, a limited
      number (50 packets RECOMMENDED) SHALL be sent through the tunnel.
      If all packet are received by the Responder (i.e. the DUT), a new
      IPsec Tunnel may be attempted.

      This proces will be repeated until no more IPsec Tunnels can be
      established.






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      At the end of the test, a traffic pattern is sent to the initiator
      that will be distributed over all Established Tunnels, where each
      tunnel will need to propagate a fixed number of packets at a
      minimum rate of e.g. 5 pps.  The aggregate rate of all Active
      Tunnels SHALL NOT exceed the IPsec Throughput.  When all packets
      sent by the Iniator are being received by the Responder, the test
      has succesfully determined the IKE SA Capacity.  If however this
      final check fails, the test needs to be re-executed with a lower
      number of Active IPsec Tunnels.  There MAY be a need to enforce a
      lower number of Active IPsec Tunnels i.e. an upper limit of Active
      IPsec Tunnel SHOULD be defined in the test.

      During the entire duration of the test rekeying of Tunnels SHALL
      NOT be permitted.  If a rekey event occurs, the test is invalid
      and MUST be restarted.

   Reporting Format:  The reporting format should reflect the maximum
      number of IPsec Tunnels that can be established when all packets
      by the initiator are received by the responder.  In addition the
      Security Context parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized
      for this test MUST be included in any statement of capacity.

8.2.  IPsec SA Capacity

   Objective:  Measure the maximum number of IPsec SA's that can be
      sustained on an IPsec Device.

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.

   Procedure:  The IPsec Device under test initially MUST NOT have any
      Active IPsec Tunnels.  The Initiator (either a tester or an IPsec
      peer) will start the negotiation of an IPsec Tunnel (a single
      Phase 1 SA and a pair Phase 2 SA's).

      After it is detected that the tunnel is established, a limited
      number (50 packets RECOMMENDED) SHALL be sent through the tunnel.
      If all packet are received by the Responder (i.e. the DUT), a new
      pair of IPsec SA's may be attempted.  This will be achieved by
      offering a specific traffic pattern to the Initiator that matches
      a given selector and therfore triggering the negotiation of a new
      pair of IPsec SA's.






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      This proces will be repeated until no more IPsec SA' can be
      established.

      At the end of the test, a traffic pattern is sent to the initiator
      that will be distributed over all IPsec SA's, where each SA will
      need to propagate a fixed number of packets at a minimum rate of 5
      pps.  When all packets sent by the Iniator are being received by
      the Responder, the test has succesfully determined the IPsec SA
      Capacity.  If however this final check fails, the test needs to be
      re-executed with a lower number of IPsec SA's.  There MAY be a
      need to enforce a lower number IPsec SA's i.e. an upper limit of
      IPsec SA's SHOULD be defined in the test.

      During the entire duration of the test rekeying of Tunnels SHALL
      NOT be permitted.  If a rekey event occurs, the test is invalid
      and MUST be restarted.

   Reporting Format:  The reporting format SHOULD be the same as listed
      in Section 8.1 for the maximum number of IPsec SAs.


9.  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 [RFC1242].  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.

9.1.  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].

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.

   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,



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      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.

      Note that the IPsec SA selectors refer to the IP addresses and
      port numbers.  So eventhough this is a test of only cleartext
      traffic, the same type of traffic should be sent for the baseline
      test as for tests utilizing IPsec.

   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.

      Any values for throughput rate 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

9.2.  IPsec Throughput

   Objective:  Measure the intrinsic throughput of a device utilizing
      IPsec.

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 9.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.

9.3.  IPsec Encryption Throughput

   Objective:  Measure the intrinsic DUT vendor specific IPsec
      Encryption Throughput.

   Topology  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   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)
      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.





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 9.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.

9.4.  IPsec Decryption Throughput

   Objective:  Measure the intrinsic DUT vendor specific IPsec
      Decryption Throughput.

   Topology  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   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.

      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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 9.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.


10.  Latency

   This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
   of the forwarding latency of a DUT/SUT.  It extends the concept of



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   latency characterization presented in [RFC2544] to an IPsec
   environment.

   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 RFC's 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.).

10.1.  Latency Baseline

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

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.

   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



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      information in the frame stream and record the time at which the
      tagged frame was received (timestamp B).

      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.

10.2.  IPsec Latency

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

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.

   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).







Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      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.

      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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 10.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.

10.3.  IPsec Encryption Latency

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

   Topology  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 10.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


10.4.  IPsec Decryption Latency

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

   Topology  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 10.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.

10.5.  Time To First Packet

   Objective:  Measure the time it takes to transmit a packet when no
      SA's have been established.

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   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.

      Note that it is possible that packets can be lost during IPsec
      Tunnel establishment and that timestamp A & B are not required to
      be associated with a unique packet.

   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 Section 7.6 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.

   Topology  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST
      be executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.

   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 January 29, 2010               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      ( ( 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 nominal device throughput,
      which is the throughput that is actually supported on an interface
      for a specific packet size and may not be the theoretical maximum.
      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 reduced 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.

   Topology  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      executed using a Device Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 1.  If no IPsec aware tester is available the test MUST be
      conducted using a System Under Test Topology as depicted in
      Figure 2.  In this scenario, it is common practice to use an
      asymmetric topology, where a less powerful (lower throughput) DUT
      is used in conjunction with a much more powerful IPsec device.
      This topology variant can in may cases produce more accurate
      results that the symmetric variant depicted in the figure, since
      all bottlenecks are expected to be on the less performant device.

   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:




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      ( ( 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 nominal device throughput,
      which is the throughput that is actually supported on an interface
      for a specific packet size and may not be the theoretical maximum.
      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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, 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.

   Topology  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   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 nominal device throughput,
      which is the throughput that is actually supported on an interface
      for a specific packet size and may not be the theoretical maximum.
      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.





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   Reporting Format:  The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.

11.4.  IPsec Decryption Frame Loss

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

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   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 nominal device throughput,
      which is the throughput that is actually supported on an interface
      for a specific packet size and may not be the theoretical maximum.
      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 SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, 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.

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   Procedure:  The procedure is the same as in Section 11.2 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.

   Reporting format:  The reporting format SHALL be the same as listed
      in Section 11.1 with the additional requirement that the Security
      Context Parameters, as defined in Section 7.6, utilized for this
      test MUST be included in any statement of performance.


12.  IPsec Tunnel Setup Behavior

12.1.  IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate

   Objective:  Determine the rate at which IPsec Tunnels can be
      established.

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  Configure the Responder (where the Responder is the DUT)
      with n IKE Phase 1 and corresponding IKE Phase 2 policies.  Ensure
      that no SA's are established and that the Responder has
      Established Tunnels for all n policies.  Send a stream of
      cleartext frames at a particular frame size to the Responder 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 Responder, 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.

      Some devices may support policy configurations where you do not
      need a one-to-one correspondence between an IKE Phase 1 policy and
      a specific IKE SA.  In this case, the number of IKE Phase 1
      policies configured should be sufficient so that the transmitted
      (i.e. offered) test traffic will create 'n' IKE SAs.

      The IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate is measured in Tunnels Per Second
      (TPS) and is determined by the following formula:

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





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      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 throughput rate at which the test was run for the specified
         frame size

         The media type used for the test

         The resultant Tunnel Setup Rate values, in TPS, for the
         particular data stream tested for that frame size

      The Security Context Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and
      utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement of
      performance.

12.2.  IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate

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

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  Configure the Responder with n IKE Phase 1 and
      corresponding IKE Phase 2 policies.  Ensure that no SA's are
      established and that the Responder has Configured Tunnels for all
      n policies.  Send a stream of cleartext frames at a particular
      frame size through the Responder 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 SA's have been established.

      Some devices may support policy configurations where you do not
      need a one-to-one correspondence between an IKE Phase 1 policy and
      a specific IKE SA.  In this case, the number of IKE Phase 1
      policies configured should be sufficient so that the transmitted
      (i.e. offered) test traffic will create 'n' IKE SAs.






Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


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

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

      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 SA's 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 Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
      be included in any statement of performance.

12.3.  IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate

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

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  Configure the Responder (where the Responder is the DUT)
      with a single IKE Phase 1 policy and n corresponding IKE Phase 2
      policies.  Ensure that no SA's are established and that the
      Responder has Configured Tunnels for all policies.  Send a stream
      of cleartext frames at a particular frame size through the
      Responder 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,
      where test_duration and frame_transmit_times are expressed in
      units of seconds:





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      IPsec SA Setup Rate = n / [test_duration - {timestamp_A +((n-1) *
      frame_transmit_time)}] IPsec SA's per Second

      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 SA's 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 throughput rate at which the test was run for the specified
         frame size

         The media type used for the test

         The resultant IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate values, in IPsec SA's per
         second, for the particular data stream tested for that frame
         size

      The Security Context parameters defined in Section 7.6 and
      utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement of
      performance.


13.  IPsec Rekey Behavior

   The IPsec Rekey Behavior test all need to be executed by an IPsec
   aware test device since the test needs to be closely linked with the
   IKE FSM (Finite State Machine) and cannot be done by offering
   specific traffic pattern at either the Initiator or the Responder.

13.1.  IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate

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

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  The IPsec Device under test should initially be set up
      with the determined IPsec Tunnel Capacity number of Active IPsec
      Tunnels.







Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      The IPsec aware tester should then perform a binary search where
      it initiates an IKE Phase 1 SA rekey for all Active IPsec Tunnels.
      The tester MUST timestamp for each IKE SA when it initiated the
      rekey (timestamp_A) and MUST timestamp once more once the FSM
      declares the rekey is completed (timestamp_B).The rekey time for a
      specific SA equals timestamp_B - timestamp_A. Once the iteration
      is complete the tester now has a table of rekey times for each IKE
      SA.  The reciprocal of the average of this table is the IKE Phase
      1 Rekey Rate.

      It is expected that all IKE SA were able to rekey succesfully.  If
      this is not the case, the IPsec Tunnels are all re-established and
      the binary search goes to the next value of IKE SA's it will
      rekey.  The process will repeat itself until a rate is determined
      at which all SA's in that timeframe rekey correctly.

   Reporting Format:  The IKE Phase 1 Rekey 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 Rekey Rate
      values for each type of data stream tested.  The Security Context
      Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
      be included in any statement of performance.

13.2.  IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate

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

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  The IPsec Device under test should initially be set up
      with the determined IPsec Tunnel Capacity number of Active IPsec
      Tunnels.

      The IPsec aware tester should then perform a binary search where
      it initiates an IKE Phase 2 SA rekey for all IPsec SA's.  The
      tester MUST timestamp for each IPsec SA when it initiated the
      rekey (timestamp_A) and MUST timestamp once more once the FSM
      declares the rekey is completed (timestamp_B).  The rekey time for
      a specific IPsec SA is timestamp_B - timestamp_A. Once the
      itteration is complete the tester now has a table of rekey times
      for each IPsec SA.  The reciprocal of the average of this table is
      the IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate.





Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      It is expected that all IPsec SA's were able to rekey succesfully.
      If this is not the case, the IPsec Tunnels are all re-established
      and the binary search goes to the next value of IPsec SA's it will
      rekey.  The process will repeat itself until a rate is determined
      at which a all SA's in that timeframe rekey correctly.

   Reporting Format:  The IKE Phase 2 Rekey 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 Rekey Rate
      values for each type of data stream tested.  The Security Context
      Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
      be included in any statement of performance.


14.  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, for example:

   o  Failover between two Software Instances of an IPsec stack.

   o  Failover between two IPsec devices.

   o  Failover between two Hardware IPsec Engines within a single IPsec
      Device.

   o  Fallback to Software IPsec from Hardware IPsec within a single
      IPsec Device.

   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.



Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


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

   Topology:  If no IPsec aware tester is available, the test MUST be
      conducted using a Redundant System Under Test Topology as depicted
      in Figure 4.  When an IPsec aware tester is available the test
      MUST be executed using a Redundant Unit Under Test Topology as
      depicted in Figure 3.  If the failover is being tested withing a
      single DUT e.g. crypto engine based failovers, a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1 MAY be used as well.

   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 determined IPsec
      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.

      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 its own counter to
      keep track of packetloss on a per SA basis.

      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 additional packet loss 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.




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      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.

      This test MUST be repeated for the single tunnel, maximum
      throughput failover case.  It is RECOMMENDED that the test is
      repeated for various number of Active Tunnels as well as for
      different framesizes and framerates.

   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.


15.  DoS Attack Resiliency

15.1.  Phase 1 DoS Resiliency Rate

   Objective:  Determine how many invalid IKE phase 1 sessions can be
      directed at a DUT before the Responder ignores or rejects valid
      IKE SA attempts.

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  Configure the Responder with n IKE Phase 1 and
      corresponding IKE Phase 2 policies, where n is equal to the IPsec
      Tunnel Capacity.  Ensure that no SA's are established and that the
      Responder has Configured Tunnels for all n policies.  Start with
      95% of the offered test traffic containing an IKE Phase 1 policy
      mismatch (either a mismatched pre-shared-key or an invalid
      certificate).

      Send a burst of cleartext frames at a particular frame size
      through the Responder at the determined throughput rate using
      frames with selectors matching all n policies.  Once the test
      completes, check whether all 5% of the correct IKE Phase 1 SAs
      have been established.  If not, keep repeating the test by
      decrementing the number of mismatched IKE Phase 1 policies
      configured by 5% until all correct IKE Phase 1 SAs have been
      established.  Between each retest, ensure that the DUT is reset
      and cleared of all previous state information.




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


      The IKE SA lifetime and the IPsec SA lifetime MUST be configured
      to exceed the duration of the test time.  It is RECOMMENDED that
      the test duration is 2 x (n x IKE SA set up rate) to ensure that
      there is enough time to establish the valid IKE Phase 1 SAs.

      Some devices may support policy configurations where you do not
      need a one-to-one correspondence between an IKE Phase 1 policy and
      a specific IKE SA.  In this case, the number of IKE Phase 1
      policies configured should be sufficient so that the transmitted
      (i.e. offered) test traffic will create 'n' IKE SAs.

   Reporting Format:  The result shall be represented as the highest
      percentage of invalid IKE Phase1 messages that still allowed all
      the valid attempts to be completed.  The Security Context
      Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
      be included in any statement of performance.

15.2.  Phase 2 Hash Mismatch DoS Resiliency Rate

   Objective:  Determine the rate of Hash Mismatched packets at which a
      valid IPsec stream starts dropping frames.

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  A stream of IPsec traffic is offered to a DUT for
      decryption.  This stream consists of two microflows.  One valid
      microflow and one that contains altered IPsec packets with a Hash
      Mismatch.  The aggregate rate of both microflows MUST be equal to
      the IPsec Throughput and should therefore be able to pass the DUT.
      A binary search will be applied to determine the ratio between the
      two microflows that causes packetloss on the valid microflow of
      traffic.

      The test MUST be conducted with a single Active Tunnel.  It MAY be
      repeated at various Tunnel scalability data points (e.g. 90%).

   Reporting Format:  The results shall be listed as PPS (of invalid
      traffic).  The Security Context Parameters defined in Section 7.6
      and utilized for this test MUST be included in any statement of
      performance.  The aggregate rate of both microflows which act as
      the offrered testing load MUST also be reported.

15.3.  Phase 2 Anti Replay Attack DoS Resiliency Rate







Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   Objective:  Determine the rate of replayed packets at which a valid
      IPsec stream start dropping frames.

   Topology:  The test MUST be conducted using a Device Under Test
      Topology as depicted in Figure 1.

   Procedure:  A stream of IPsec traffic is offered to a DUT for
      decryption.  This stream consists of two microflows.  One valid
      microflow and one that contains replayed packets of the valid
      microflow.  The aggregate rate of both microflows MUST be equal to
      the IPsec Throughput and should therefore be able to pass the DUT.
      A binary search will be applied to determine the ratio between the
      two microflows that causes packet loss on the valid microflow of
      traffic.

      The replayed packets should always be offered within the window of
      which the original packet arrived i.e. it MUST be replayed
      directly after the original packet has been sent to the DUT.  The
      binary search SHOULD start with a low anti-replay count where
      every few anti-replay windows, a single packet in the window is
      replayed.  To increase this, one should obey the following
      sequence:

      *  Increase the replayed packets so every window contains a single
         replayed packet

      *  Increase the replayed packets so every packet within a window
         is replayed once

      *  Increase the replayed packets so packets within a single window
         are replayed multiple times following the same fill sequence

      If the flow of replayed traffic equals the IPsec Throughput, the
      flow SHOULD be increased till the point where packetloss is
      observed on the replayed traffic flow.

      The test MUST be conducted with a single Active Tunnel.  It MAY be
      repeated at various Tunnel scalability data points.  The test
      SHOULD also be repeated on all configurable anti-replay window
      sizes.

   Reporting Format:  PPS (of replayed traffic).  The Security Context
      Parameters defined in Section 7.6 and utilized for this test MUST
      be included in any statement of performance.







Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


16.  Security Considerations

   As this document is solely for the purpose of providing test
   benchmarking methodology and describes neither a protocol nor a
   protocol's implementation; there are no security considerations
   associated with this document.


17.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
   their help and participation of the compilation and editing of this
   document: Michele Bustos, Paul Hoffman, Benno Overeinder, Scott
   Poretsky, Yaron Sheffer and Al Morton.


18.  References

18.1.  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.




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   [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.

   [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.




Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Methodology           July 2009


   [RFC4305]  Eastlake, D., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
              Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4305, December 2005.

   [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [RFC5180]  Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
              Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
              Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.

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

18.2.  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>.


Authors' Addresses

   Merike Kaeo
   Double Shot Security
   3518 Fremont Ave N #363
   Seattle, WA  98103
   USA

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


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

   Phone: +1(408)853-2284
   Email: herckt@cisco.com







Kaeo & Van Herck        Expires January 29, 2010               [Page 41]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/