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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

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


               Terminology for Benchmarking IPsec Devices
                     draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-07

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This purpose of this document is to define terminology specific to
   measuring the performance of IPsec devices.  It builds upon the
   tenets set forth in [RFC1242], [RFC2544], [RFC2285] and other IETF
   Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) documents used for
   benchmarking routers and switches.  This document seeks to extend



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   these efforts specific 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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  IPsec Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  IPsec Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.1.  Security Associations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.2.  Key Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Definition Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Key Words to Reflect Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Existing Benchmark Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.1.  IPsec  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.2.  ISAKMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.3.  IKE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       7.3.1.  IKE Phase 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       7.3.2.  IKE Phase 1 Main Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.3.3.  IKE Phase 1 Aggressive Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.3.4.  IKE Phase 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       7.3.5.  Phase 2 Quick Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     7.4.  Security Association (SA)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.5.  Selectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.6.  IPsec Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       7.6.1.  Initiator  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       7.6.2.  Responder  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       7.6.3.  IPsec Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       7.6.4.  IPsec Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.7.  Tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       7.7.1.  IPsec Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       7.7.2.  Configured Tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.7.3.  Established Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       7.7.4.  Active Tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.8.  Iterated Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       7.8.1.  Nested Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       7.8.2.  Transport Adjacency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     7.9.  Transform protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       7.9.1.  Authentication Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       7.9.2.  Encryption Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.10. IPsec Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       7.10.1. Authentication Header (AH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


       7.10.2. Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP)  . . . . . . . . . 28
     7.11. NAT Traversal (NAT-T)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     7.12. IP Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     7.13. Security Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   8.  Framesizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     8.1.  Layer3 clear framesize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     8.2.  Layer3 encrypted framesize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   9.  Performance Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     9.1.  IPsec Tunnels Per Second (TPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     9.2.  Tunnel Rekeys Per Seconds (TRPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     9.3.  IPsec Tunnel Attempts Per Second (TAPS)  . . . . . . . . . 35
   10. Test Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     10.1. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       10.1.1. IKE SA Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       10.1.2. IPsec SA Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     10.2. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
       10.2.1. IPsec Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
       10.2.2. IPsec Encryption Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       10.2.3. IPsec Decryption Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       10.2.4. IPsec Fragmentation Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       10.2.5. IPsec Reassembly Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     10.3. Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
       10.3.1. IPsec Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
       10.3.2. IPsec Encryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       10.3.3. IPsec Decryption Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
       10.3.4. Time To First Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     10.4. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       10.4.1. IPsec Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       10.4.2. IPsec Encryption Frame Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
       10.4.3. IPsec Decryption Frame Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
       10.4.4. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     10.5. Back-to-back Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
       10.5.1. IPsec Back-to-back Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
       10.5.2. IPsec Encryption Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . 46
       10.5.3. IPsec Decryption Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . 47
     10.6. Tunnel Setup Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       10.6.1. IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       10.6.2. IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
       10.6.3. IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     10.7. IPsec Tunnel Rekey Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
       10.7.1. IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
       10.7.2. IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
     10.8. IPsec Tunnel Failover Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
   13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 57
















































Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


1.  Introduction

   Despite the need to secure communications over a public medium there
   is no standard method of performance measurement nor a standard in
   the terminology used to develop such hardware and software solutions.
   This results in varied implementations which challenge
   interoperability and direct performance comparisons.  Standardized
   IPsec terminology and performance test methodologies will enable
   users to determine if the IPsec device they select will withstand
   loads of secured traffic that meet their requirements.

   To appropriately define the parameters and scope of this document,
   this section will give a brief overview of the IPsec standard:


2.  IPsec Fundamentals

   IPsec is a framework of open standards that provides data
   confidentiality, data integrity, and data origin authenticity between
   participating peers.  IPsec provides these security services at the
   IP layer.  IPsec uses IKE to handle negotiation of protocols and
   algorithms based on local policy, and to generate the encryption and
   authentication keys to be used.  IPsec can be used to protect one or
   more data flows between a pair of hosts, between a pair of security
   gateways, or between a security gateway and a host.  The IPsec
   protocol suite set of standards is documented in RFC's [RFC2401]
   through [RFC2412] and [RFC2451].  The reader is assumed to be
   familiar with these documents.  Some Internet Drafts supersede these
   RFC's and will be taken into consideration.

   IPsec itself defines the following:

   Authentication Header (AH): A security protocol, defined in
   [RFC2402], which provides data authentication and optional anti-
   replay services.  AH ensures the integrity and data origin
   authentication of the IP datagram as well as the invariant fields in
   the outer IP header.

   Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP): A security protocol, defined in
   [RFC2406], which provides confidentiality, data origin
   authentication, connectionless integrity, an anti-replay service and
   limited traffic flow confidentiality.  The set of services provided
   depends on options selected at the time of Security Association (SA)
   establishment and on the location of the implementation in a network
   topology.  ESP authenticates only headers and data after the IP
   header.

   Internet Key Exchange (IKE): A hybrid protocol which implements



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Oakley [RFC2412] and SKEME [SKEME] key exchanges inside the ISAKMP
   framework.  While IKE can be used with other protocols, its initial
   implementation is with the IPsec protocol.  IKE provides
   authentication of the IPsec peers, negotiates IPsec security
   associations, and establishes IPsec keys.

   The AH and ESP protocols each support two modes of operation:
   transport mode and tunnel mode.  In transport mode, two hosts provide
   protection primarily for upper-layer protocols.  The cryptographic
   endpoints (where the encryption and decryption take place) are the
   source and destination of the data packet.  In IPv4, a transport mode
   security protocol header appears immediately after the IP header and
   before any higher-layer protocols (such as TCP or UDP).  In IPv6, the
   security protocol header appears after the base IP header and
   selected extension headers.  It may appear before or after
   destination options but must appear before next layer protocols
   (e.g., TCP, UDP, SCTP)

   In the case of AH in transport mode, security services are provided
   to selected portions of the IP header preceding the AH header,
   selected portions of extension headers, and selected options
   (contained in the IPv4 header, IPv6 Hop-by-Hop extension header, or
   IPv6 Destination extension headers).  Any fields in these headers/
   extension headers which are modified in transit are set to 0 before
   applying the authentication algorithm.  If a field is mutable, but
   its value at the receiving IPsec peer is predictable, then that value
   is inserted into the field before applying the cryptographic
   algorithm.

   In the case of ESP in transport mode, security services are provide
   only for the higher-layer protocols, not for the IP header or any
   extension headers preceding the ESP header.

   A tunnel is a vehicle for encapsulating packets inside a protocol
   that is understood at the entry and exit points of a given network.
   These entry and exit points are defined as tunnel interfaces.

   Both the AH and ESP protocols can be used in tunnel mode for data
   packet endpoints as well as by intermediate security gateways.  In
   tunnel mode, there is an "outer" IP header that specifies the IPsec
   processing destination, plus an "inner" IP header that specifies the
   ultimate destination for the packet.  The source address in the outer
   IP header is the initiating cryptographic endpoint; the source
   address in the inner header is the true source address of the packet.
   The security protocol header appears after the outer IP header and
   before the inner IP header.

   If AH is employed in tunnel mode, portions of the new outer IP header



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   are given protection (those same fields as for transport mode,
   described earlier in this section), as well as all of the tunneled IP
   packet (that is, all of the inner IP header is protected as are the
   higher-layer protocols).  If ESP is employed, the protection is
   afforded only to the tunneled packet, not to the new outer IP header.

2.1.  IPsec Operation

2.1.1.  Security Associations

   The concept of a Security Association (SA) is fundamental to IPsec.
   An SA is a relationship between two or more entities that describes
   how the entities will use security services to communicate.  The SA
   includes: an encryption algorithm, an authentication algorithm and a
   shared session key.

   Because an SA is unidirectional, two SA's (one in each direction) are
   required to secure typical, bidirectional communication between two
   entities.  The security services associated with an SA can be used
   for AH or ESP, but not for both.  If both AH and ESP protection is
   applied to a traffic stream, two (or more) SA's are created for each
   direction to protect the traffic stream.

   The SA is uniquely identified by the Security Parameter Index (SPI)
   [RFC2406].  When a system sends a packet that requires IPsec
   protection, it looks up the SA in its database and applies the
   specified processing and security protocol (AH/ESP), inserting the
   SPI from the SA into the IPsec header.  When the IPsec peer receives
   the packet, it looks up the SA in its database by destination
   address, protocol, and SPI and then processes the packet as required.

2.1.2.  Key Management

   IPsec uses cryptographic keys for authentication, integrity and
   encryption services.  Both manual provisioning and automatic
   distribution of keys is supported.  IKE is specified as the public-
   key-based approach for automatic key management.

   IKE authenticates each peer involved in IPsec, negotiates the
   security policy, and handles the exchange of session keys.  IKE is a
   hybrid protocol, combining parts of the following protocols to
   negotiate and derive keying material for SA's in a secure and
   authenticated manner:

   1.  ISAKMP [RFC2408] (Internet Security Association and Key
       Management Protocol), which provides a framework for
       authentication and key exchange but does not define them.  ISAKMP
       is designed to be key exchange independent; it is designed to



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


       support many different key exchanges.

   2.  Oakley [RFC2412], which describes a series of key exchanges,
       called modes, and details the services provided by each (for
       example, perfect forward secrecy for keys, identity protection,
       and authentication).

   3.  [SKEME] (Secure Key Exchange Mechanism for Internet), which
       describes a versatile key exchange technique that provides
       anonymity, reputability, and quick key refreshment.

   IKE creates an authenticated, secure tunnel between two entities and
   then negotiates the security association for IPsec.  This is
   performed in two phases.

   In Phase 1, the two unidirectional SA's establish a secure,
   authenticated channel with which to communicate.  Phase 1 has two
   distinct modes; Main Mode and Aggressive Mode.  Main Mode for Phase 1
   provides identity protection.  When identity protection is not
   needed, Aggressive Mode can be used.  The completion of Phase 1 is
   called an IKE SA.

   The following attributes are used by IKE and are negotiated as part
   of the IKE SA:

   o  Encryption algorithm.

   o  Hash algorithm.

   o  Authentication method (digital signature, public-key encryption or
      pre-shared key).

   o  Diffie-Hellman group information.

   After the attributes are negotiated, both parties must be
   authenticated to each other.  IKE supports multiple authentication
   methods.  The following mechanisms are generally implemented:

   o  Pre-shared keys: The same key is pre-installed on each host.  IKE
      peers authenticate each other by computing and sending a keyed
      hash of data that includes the pre-shared key.  If the receiving
      peer can independently create the same hash using its preshared
      key, it knows that both parties must share the same secret, and
      thus the other party is authenticated.

   o  Public key cryptography: Each party generates a pseudo-random
      number (a nonce) and encrypts it and its ID using the other
      party's public key.  The ability for each party to compute a keyed



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      hash containing the other peer's nonce and ID, decrypted with the
      local private key, authenticates the parties to each other.  This
      method does not provide nonrepudiation; either side of the
      exchange could plausibly deny that it took part in the exchange.

   o  Digital signature: Each device digitally signs a set of data and
      sends it to the other party.  This method is similar to the
      public-key cryptography approach except that it provides
      nonrepudiation.

   Note that both digital signature and public-key cryptography require
   the use of digital certificates to validate the public/private key
   mapping.  IKE allows the certificate to be accessed independently or
   by having the two devices explicitly exchange certificates as part of
   IKE.  Both parties must have a shared session key to encrypt the IKE
   tunnel.  The Diffie-Hellman protocol is used to agree on a common
   session key.

   In Phase 2 of IKE, SA's are negotiated for ESP and/or AH.  These SA's
   will be called IPsec SA's.  These IPsec SA's use a different shared
   key than that used for the IKE_SA.  The IPsec SA shared key can be
   derived by using Diffie-Hellman again or by refreshing the shared key
   derived from the original Diffie-Hellman exchange that generated the
   IKE_SA by hashing it with nonces.  Once the shared key is derived and
   additional communication parameters are negotiated, the IPsec SA's
   are established and traffic can be exchanged using the negotiated
   parameters.


3.  Document Scope

   The primary focus of this document is to establish useful performance
   testing terminology for IPsec devices that support manual keying and
   IKEv1.  We want to constrain the terminology specified in this
   document to meet the requirements of the Methodology for Benchmarking
   IPsec Devices documented test methodologies.

   Both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing will be taken into consideration.

   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.

   Any testing involving interoperability and/or conformance issues,



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   L2TP [RFC2661], GRE [RFC2784], MPLS VPN's [RFC2547], multicast, and
   anything that does not specifically relate to the establishment and
   tearing down of IPsec tunnels is specifically out of scope.  It is
   assumed that all relevant networking parameters that facilitate in
   the running of these tests are pre-configured (this includes at a
   minimum ARP caches, routing tables, neighbor tables, etc ...).


4.  Definition Format

   The definition format utilized by this document is described in
   [RFC1242], Section 2.

   Term to be defined.

   Definition:

      The specific definition for the term.

   Discussion:

      A brief discussion of the term, its application, or other
      information that would build understanding.

   Issues:

      List of issues or conditions that affect this term.  This field
      can present items the may impact the term's related methodology or
      otherwise restrict its measurement procedures.

   [Measurement units:]

      Units used to record measurements of this term.  This field is
      mandatory where applicable.  This field is optional in this
      document.

   [See Also:]

      List of other terms that are relevant to the discussion of this
      term.  This field is optional in this document.


5.  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



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   standards track documents as clear as possible.  While this document
   uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track document.


6.  Existing Benchmark Definitions

   It is recommended that readers consult [RFC1242], [RFC2544] and
   [RFC2285] before making use of this document.  These and other IETF
   Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) router and switch
   documents contain several existing terms relevant to benchmarking the
   performance of IPsec devices.  The conceptual framework established
   in these earlier RFC's will be evident in this document.

   This document also draws on existing terminology defined in other
   BMWG documents.  Examples include, but are not limited to:

             Throughput          [RFC 1242, section 3.17]
             Latency             [RFC 1242, section 3.8]
             Frame Loss Rate     [RFC 1242, section 3.6]
             Forwarding Rates    [RFC 2285, section 3.6]
             Loads               [RFC 2285, section 3.5]


7.  Definitions

7.1.  IPsec

   Definition:

      IPsec or IP Security protocol suite which comprises a set of
      standards used to provide security services at the IP layer.

   Discussion:

      IPsec is a framework of protocols that offer authentication,
      integrity and encryption services to the IP and/or upper layer
      protocols.  The major components of the protocol suite are IKE,
      used for key exchanges, and IPsec protocols such as AH and ESP,
      which use the exchanged keys to protect payload traffic.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      IPsec Device, IKE, ISAKMP, ESP, AH

7.2.  ISAKMP

   Definition:

      The Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol,
      which provides a framework for authentication and key exchange but
      does not define them.  ISAKMP is designed to be key exchange
      independent; it is designed to support many different key
      exchanges.  ISAKMP is defined in [RFC2407].

   Discussion:

      Though ISAKMP is only a framework for the IPsec standard key
      management protocol, it is often misused and interchanged with the
      term 'IKE', which is an implementation of ISAKMP.

   Issues:

      When implementations refer to the term 'ISAKMP SA', it refers to
      an IKE Phase 1 SA.

   See Also:

      IKE, Security Association

7.3.  IKE

   Definition:

      A hybrid key management protocol that provides authentication of
      the IPsec peers, negotiates IPsec SAs and establishes IPsec keys.

   Discussion:

      A hybrid protocol, defined in [RFC2409], from the following 3
      protocols:

      *  ISAKMP (Internet Security Association and Key Management
         Protocol), which provides a framework for authentication and
         key exchange but does not define them.  ISAKMP is designed to
         be key exchange independent; it is designed to support many
         different key exchanges.

      *  Oakley, which describes a series of key exchanges, called
         modes, and details the services provided by each (for example,
         perfect forward secrecy for keys, identity protection, and



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


         authentication).  [RFC2412]

      *  [SKEME] (Secure Key Exchange Mechanism for Internet), which
         describes a versatile key exchange technique that provides
         anonymity, reputability, and quick key refreshment.

      Note that IKE is an optional protocol within the IPsec framework.
      IPsec SAs may also be manually configured.  Manual keying is the
      most basic mechanism to establish IPsec SAs between two IPsec
      devices.  However, it is not a scalable solution and often
      manually configured keys are not changed on a periodic basis which
      reduces the level of protection since the keys are effectively
      static and as a result are more prone to various attacks.  When
      IKE is employed as a key management protocol, the keys are
      automatically renegotiated on a user-defined basis (time and/or
      traffic volume based) as part of the IKE rekeying mechanism.

   Issues:

      During the first IPsec deployment experiences, ambiguities were
      found in the IKEv1 specification, which lead to interoperability
      problems.  To resolve these issues, IKEv1 is being updated by
      IKEv2.

   See Also:

      ISAKMP, IPsec, Security Association

7.3.1.  IKE Phase 1

   Definition:

      The shared policy and key(s) used by negotiating peers to
      establish a secure authenticated "control channel" for further IKE
      communications.

   Discussion:

      The IPsec framework mandates that SPI's are used to secure payload
      traffic.  If IKE is employed all SPI information will be exchanged
      between the IPsec devices.  This has to be done in a secure
      fashion and for that reason IKE will set up a secure "control
      channel" over which it can exchange this information.

      Note that IKE is an optional protocol within the IPsec framework
      and that SPI information can also be manually configured.





Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Issues:

      In some documents often referenced as ISAKMP SA or IKE SA.

   See Also:

      IKE, ISAKMP

7.3.2.  IKE Phase 1 Main Mode

   Definition:

      Main Mode is an instantiation of the ISAKMP Identity Protect
      Exchange, defined in [RFC2409].  Upon successful completion it
      results in the establishment of an IKE Phase 1 SA.

   Discussion:

      IKE Main Mode use 3 distinct message pairs, for a total of 6
      messages.  The first two messages negotiate policy; the next two
      represent Diffie-Hellman public values and ancillary data (e.g.
      nonces); and the last two messages authenticate the Diffie-Hellman
      Exchange.  The authentication method negotiated as part of the
      initial IKE Phase 1 influence the composition of the payloads but
      not their purpose.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      ISAKMP, IKE, IKE Phase 1, Phase 1 Aggressive Mode

7.3.3.  IKE Phase 1 Aggressive Mode

   Definition:

      Aggressive Mode is an instantiation of the ISAKMP Aggressive
      Exchange, defined in [RFC2409].  Upon successful completion it
      results in the establishment of an IKE Phase 1 SA.

   Discussion:

      IKE Aggressive Mode uses 3 messages.  The first two messages
      negotiate policy, exchange Diffie-Hellman public values and
      ancillary data necessary for the exchange, and identities.  In
      addition the second message authenticates the Responder.  The



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      third message authenticates the Initiator and provides proof of
      participation in the exchange.

   Issues:

      For IKEv1 the standard specifies that all implementations use both
      main and agressive mode, however, it is common to use only main
      mode.

   See Also:

      ISAKMP, IKE, IKE Phase 1, Phase 1 Main Mode

7.3.4.  IKE Phase 2

   Definition:

      ISAKMP phase which upon successful completion establishes the
      shared keys used by the negotiating peers to set up a secure "data
      channel" for IPsec.

   Discussion:

      The main purpose of Phase 2 is to produce the key for the IPsec
      tunnel.  Phase 2 is also used for exchanging informational
      messages.

   Issues:

      In other documents also referenced as IPsec SA.

   See Also:

      IKE Phase 1, ISAKMP, IKE

7.3.5.  Phase 2 Quick Mode

   Definition:

      Quick Mode is an instanciation of IKE Phase 2.  After successful
      completion it will result in one or typically two or more IPsec
      SA's

   Discussion:







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      Quick Mode is used to negotiate the SA's and keys that will be
      used to protect the user data.  Three different messages are
      exchanged, which are protected by the security parameters
      negotiated by the IKE phase 1 exchange.  An additional Diffie-
      Hellman exchange may be performed if PFS (Perfect Forward Secrecy)
      is enabled.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      ISAKMP, IKE, IKE Phase 2

7.4.  Security Association (SA)

   Definition:

      A set of policy and key(s) used to protect traffic flows that
      require authentication and/or encryption services.  It is a
      negotiation agreement between two IPsec devices, specifically the
      Initiator and Responder.

   Discussion:

      A simplex (unidirectional) logical connection that links a traffic
      flow to a set of security parameters.  All traffic traversing an
      SA is provided the same security processing and will be subjected
      to a common set of encryption and/or authentication algorithms.
      In IPsec, an SA is an Internet layer abstraction implemented
      through the use of AH or ESP as defined in [RFC2401].

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Initiator, Responder

7.5.  Selectors

   Definition:







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      A mechanism used for the classification of traffic flows that
      require authentication and/or encryption services.

   Discussion:

      The selectors are a set of fields that will be extracted from the
      network and transport layer headers that provide the ability to
      classify the traffic flow and associate it with an SA.

      After classification, a decision can be made if the traffic needs
      to be encrypted/decrypted and how this should be done depending on
      the SA linked to the traffic flow.  Simply put, selectors classify
      IP packets that require IPsec processing and those packets that
      must be passed along without any intervention of the IPsec
      framework.

      Selectors are flexible objects that can match on ranges of source
      and destination addresses and ranges of source and destination
      ports.

   Issues:

      Both sides must agree exactly on both the networks being
      protected, and they both must agree on how to describe the
      networks (range, subnet, addresses).  This is a common point of
      non-interoperability.

7.6.  IPsec Device

   Definition:

      Any implementation that has the ability to process data flows
      according to the IPsec protocol suite specifications.

   Discussion:

      Implementations can be grouped by 'external' properties (e.g.
      software vs. hardware implementations) but more important is the
      subtle differences that implementations may have with relation to
      the IPsec Protocol Suite.  Not all implementations will cover all
      RFC's that encompass the IPsec Protocol Suite, but the majority
      will support a large subset of features described in the suite,
      nor will all implementations utilize all of the cryptographic
      functions listed in the RFC's.







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      In that context, any implementation, that supports basic IP layer
      security services as described in the IPsec protocol suite shall
      be called an IPsec Device.

   Issues:

      Due to the fragmented nature of the IPsec Protocol Suite RFC's, it
      is possible that IPsec implementations will not be able to
      interoperate.  Therefore it is important to know which features
      and options are implemented in the IPsec Device.

   See Also:

      IPsec

7.6.1.  Initiator

   Definition:

      An IPsec device which starts the negotiation of IKE Phase 1 and
      IKE Phase 2 SAs.

   Discussion:

      When a traffic flow is offered at an IPsec device and it is
      determined that the flow must be protected, but there is no IPsec
      tunnel to send the traffic through, it is the responsibility of
      the IPsec device to start a negotiation process that will
      instantiate the IPsec tunnel.  This process will establish an IKE
      Phase 1 SA and one, or more likely, a pair IKE phase 2 SA's,
      eventually resulting in secured data transport.  The device that
      takes the action to start this negotiation process will be called
      an Initiator.

   Issues:

      IPsec devices/implementations can be both an initiator as well as
      a responder.  The distinction is useful from a test perspective.

   See Also:

      Responder, IKE, IPsec

7.6.2.  Responder







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Definition:

      An IPsec device which replies to incoming IKE Phase 1 and IKE
      Phase 2 requests and processes these messages in order to
      establish an IPsec tunnel.

   Discussion:

      When an initiator attempts to establish SA's with another IPsec
      device, this peer will need to evaluate the proposals made by the
      initiator and either accept or deny them.  In the former case, the
      traffic flow will be decrypted according to the negotiated
      parameters.  Such a device will be called a Responder.

   Issues:

      IPsec devices/implementations can usually be both an initiator as
      well as a responder.  The distinction is useful from a test
      perspective.

   See Also:

      Initiator, IKE

7.6.3.  IPsec Client

   Definition:

      IPsec Devices that will only act as an Initiator.

   Discussion:

      In some situations it is not needed or prefered to have an IPsec
      device respond to an inbound IKE SA or IPsec SA request.  In the
      case of e.g. road warriors or home office scenarios the only
      property needed from the IPsec device is the ability to securely
      connect to a remote private network.  The IPsec Client will
      initiate one or more IPsec tunnels to an IPsec Server on the
      network that needs to be accessed and to provide the required
      security services.  An IPsec client will silently drop and ignore
      any inbound IPsec tunnel requests.  IPsec clients are generally
      used to connect remote users in a secure fashion over the Internet
      to a private network.

   Issues:






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec device, IPsec Server, Initiator, Responder

7.6.4.  IPsec Server

   Definition:

      IPsec Devices that can both act as an Initiator as well as a
      Responder.

   Discussion:

      IPsec Servers are mostly positioned at private network edges and
      provide several functions:

      *  Responds to IPsec tunnel setup request from IPsec Clients.

      *  Responds to IPsec tunnel setup request from other IPsec devices
         (Initiators).

      *  Initiate IPsec tunnels to other IPsec servers inside or outside
         the private network.

   Issues:

      IPsec Servers are also sometimes referred to as 'VPN
      Concentrators'.

   See Also:

      IPsec Device, IPsec Client, Initiator, Responder

7.7.  Tunnels

   The term "tunnel" is often used in a variety of contexts.  To avoid
   any discrepancies, in this document, the following distinctions have
   been defined:

7.7.1.  IPsec Tunnel

   Definition:







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      The combination of an IKE Phase 1 SA and a pair of IKE Phase 2
      SA's.

   Discussion:

      An IPsec Tunnel will be defined as a single (1) Phase 1 SA and a
      pair (2) Phase 2 SA's.  This construct will allow bidirectional
      traffic to be passed between two IPsec Devices where the traffic
      can benefit form the services offered in the IPsec framework.

   Issues:

      Since it is implied that a Phase 1 SA is used, an IPsec Tunnel
      will be by definition a dynamically negotiated secured link.  If
      manual keying is used to enable secure data transport, then this
      link will merely be referred to as a pair of IPsec SA's.

      It is very likely that more then one pair of Phase 2 SA's are
      associated with a single Phase 1 SA.  Also in this case, the IPsec
      Tunnel definition WILL NOT apply.  Instead the ratio between Phase
      1 SA's and Phase 2 SA's MUST be explictly stated.  The umbrella
      term of "IPsec Tunnel" MUST NOT be used in this context.

   See Also:

      IKE Phase 1, IKE Phase 2

7.7.2.  Configured Tunnel

   Definition:

      An IPsec tunnel or a pair of IPsec SAs in the case of manual
      keying that is provisioned in the IPsec device's configuration.

   Discussion:

      Several steps are required before IPsec can be used to actually
      transport traffic.  The very first step is to configure the IPsec
      Tunnel (or IPsec SAs in the case of manual keying) in the IPsec
      device.  When using IKE there are no SA's associated with the
      IPsec Tunnel and no traffic is going through the IPsec device that
      matches the Selectors, which would instantiate the IPsec Tunnel.
      When using either manual keying or IKE, a configured tunnel will
      not have a populated SADB.







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Issues:

      When using IKE, a configured tunnel will not have any SAs while
      with manual keying, the SAs will have simply been configured but
      not populated in the SADB.

   See Also:

      IPsec Tunnel, Established Tunnel, Active Tunnel

7.7.3.  Established Tunnel

   Definition:

      An IPsec device that has a populated SADB and is ready to provide
      security services to the appropriate traffic.

   Discussion:

      When using IKE, a second step needed to ensure that an IPsec
      Tunnel can transport data is to complete the Phase 1 and Phase 2
      negotiations.  After the packet classification process has
      asserted that a packet requires security services, the negotation
      is started to obtain both Phase 1 and Phase 2 SAs.  After this is
      completed and the SADB is populated, the IPsec Tunnel is called
      'Established'.  Note that at this time there is still no traffic
      flowing through the IPsec Tunnel.  Just enough packet(s) have been
      sent to the IPsec device that matched the selectors and triggered
      the IPsec Tunnel setup to result in a populated SADB.  In the case
      of manual keying, populating the SADB is accomplished by a
      separate administrative command.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Tunnel, Configured Tunnel, Active Tunnel

7.7.4.  Active Tunnel

   Definition:

      An IPsec device that is forwarding secured data.






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Discussion:

      When a Tunnel is Established and it is transporting traffic that
      is authenticated and/or encrypted, the tunnel is called 'Active'.

   Issues:

      The distinction between an Active Tunnel and Configured/
      Established Tunnel is made in the context of manual keyed Tunnels.
      In this case it would be possible to have an Established tunnel on
      an IPsec device which has no counterpart on it's corresponding
      peer.  This will lead to encrypted traffic flows which will be
      discarded on the receiving peer.  Only if both peers have an
      Established Tunnel that shows evidence of traffic transport, it
      may be called an Active Tunnel.

   See Also:

      IPsec Tunnel, Configured Tunnel, Established Tunnel

7.8.  Iterated Tunnels

   Iterated Tunnels are a bundle of transport and/or tunnel mode SA's.
   The bundles are divided into two major groups :

7.8.1.  Nested Tunnels

   Definition:

      An SA bundle consisting of two or more 'tunnel mode' SA's.

   Discussion:

      The process of nesting tunnels can theoretically be repeated
      multiple times (for example, tunnels can be many levels deep), but
      for all practical purposes, most implementations limit the level
      of nesting.  Nested tunnels can use a mix of AH and ESP
      encapsulated traffic.



      [GW1] --- [GW2] ---- [IP CLOUD] ---- [GW3] --- [GW4]
        |         |                          |         |
        |         |                          |         |
        |         +----{SA1 (ESP tunnel)}----+         |
        |                                              |
        +--------------{SA2 (AH tunnel)}---------------+




Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      In the IP Cloud a packet would have a format like this :
      [IP{2,3}][ESP][IP{1,4}][AH][IP][PAYLOAD][ESP TRAILER][ESP AUTH]

      Nested tunnels can be deployed to provide additional security on
      already secured traffic.  A typical example of this would be that
      the inner gateways (GW2 and GW3) are securing traffic between two
      branch offices and the outer gateways (GW1 & GW4) add an
      additional layer of security between departments within those
      branch offices.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Transport Adjacency, IPsec Tunnel

7.8.2.  Transport Adjacency

   Definition:

      An SA bundle consisting of two or more transport mode SA's.

   Discussion:

      Transport adjacency is a form of tunnel nesting.  In this case two
      or more transport mode IPsec tunnels are set side by side to
      enhance applied security properties.

      Transport adjacency can be used with a mix of AH and ESP tunnels
      although some combinations are not preferred.  If AH and ESP are
      mixed, the ESP tunnel should always encapsulate the AH tunnel.
      The reverse combination is a valid combination but doesn't make
      cryptographical sense.



      [GW1] --- [GW2] ---- [IP CLOUD] ---- [GW3] --- [GW4]
       | |                                   |         |
       | |                                   |         |
       | +------{SA1 (ESP transport)}--------+         |
       |                                               |
       +-------------{SA2 (AH transport)}--------------+







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      In the IP Cloud a packet would have a format like this :
      [IP][ESP][AH][PAYLOAD][ESP TRAILER][ESP AUTH]

   Issues:

      This is rarely used in the way it is depicted.  It is more common,
      but still not likely, that SA's are established from different
      gateways as depicted in the Nested Tunnels figure.  The packet
      format in the IP Cloud would remain unchanged.

   See Also:

      Nested Tunnels, IPsec Tunnel

7.9.  Transform protocols

   Definition:

      Encryption and authentication algorithms that provide cryptograhic
      services to the IPsec Protocols.

   Discussion:

      Some algorithms run significantly slower than others.  A decision
      for which algorithm to use is usually based on the tradeoff
      between performance and security strength.  For example, 3DES
      encryption is generally slower then DES encryption.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Authentication protocols, Encryption protocols

7.9.1.  Authentication Protocols

   Definition:

      Algorithms which provide data integrity and data source
      authentication.

   Discussion:







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      Authentication protocols provide no confidentiality.  Commonly
      used authentication algorithms/protocols are:

           * MD5-HMAC
           * SHA-HMAC
           * AES-HMAC

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Transform protocols, Encryption protocols

7.9.2.  Encryption Protocols

   Definition:

      Algorithms which provide data confidentiality.

   Discussion:

      Encryption protocols provide no authentication.  Commonly used
      encryption algorithms/protocols are:

           * NULL encryption
           * DES-CBC
           * 3DES-CBC
           * AES-CBC

   Issues:

      The null-encryption option is a valid encryption mechanism to
      provide an alternative to using AH.  There is no confidentiality
      protection with null-encryption.  Note also that when using ESP
      null-encryption the authentication and integrity services only
      apply for the upper layer protocols and not for the IP header
      itself.

      DES has been officially deprecated by NIST, though it is still
      mandated by the IPsec framework and is still commonly implemented
      and used due to it's speed advantage over 3DES.  AES will be the
      successor of 3DES due to its superior encryption and performance
      advantage.






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   See Also:

      Transform protocols, Authentication protocols

7.10.  IPsec Protocols

   Definition:

      A suite of protocols which provide a framework of open standards
      that provides data origin confidentiality, data integrity, and
      data origin authenticity between participating peers at the IP
      layer.  The IPsec protocol suite set of standards is documented in
      [RFC2401] through [RFC2412] and [RFC2451].

   Discussion:

      The IPsec Protocol suite is modular and forward compatible.  The
      protocols that comprise the IPsec protocol suite can be replaced
      with new versions of those protocols as the older versions become
      obsolete.  For example, IKEv2 will soon replace IKEv1.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      AH, ESP

7.10.1.  Authentication Header (AH)

   Definition:

      Provides data origin authentication and data integrity (including
      replay protection) security services as defined in [RFC2402].

   Discussion:

      The AH protocol supports two modes of operation i.e. tunnel mode
      and transport mode.

      In transport mode, AH is inserted after the IP header and before a
      next layer protocol, e.g., TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc. or before any
      other IPsec headers that have already been inserted.  In the
      context of IPv4, this calls for placing AH after the IP header
      (and any options that it contains), but before the next layer
      protocol.  In the IPv6 context, AH is viewed as an end-to-end
      payload, and thus should appear after hop-by-hop, routing, and



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      fragmentation extension headers.  The destination options
      extension header(s) could appear before or after or both before
      and after the AH header depending on the semantics desired.

      In tunnel mode, the "inner" IP header carries the ultimate (IP)
      source and destination addresses, while an "outer" IP header
      contains the addresses of the IPsec "peers," e.g., addresses of
      security gateways.  In tunnel mode, AH protects the entire inner
      IP packet, including the entire inner IP header.  The position of
      AH in tunnel mode, relative to the outer IP header, is the same as
      for AH in transport mode.

   Issues:

      AH is rarely used to secure traffic over the Internet.

   See Also:

      Transform protocols, IPsec protocols, Encapsulated Security
      Payload

7.10.2.  Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP)

   Definition:

      Provides data origin authentication, data integrity (including
      replay protection) and data confidentiality as defined in
      [RFC2406].

   Discussion:

      The ESP protocol supports two modes of operation i.e. tunnel mode
      and transport mode.

      In transport mode, ESP is inserted after the IP header and before
      a next layer protocol, e.g., TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc.  In the context
      of IPv4, this translates to placing ESP after the IP header (and
      any options that it contains), but before the next layer protocol.
      In the IPv6 context, ESP is viewed as an end-to-end payload, and
      thus should appear after hop-by-hop, routing, and fragmentation
      extension headers.  Destination options extension header(s) could
      appear before, after, or both before and after the ESP header
      depending on the semantics desired.  However, since ESP protects
      only fields after the ESP header, it generally will be desirable
      to place the destination options header(s) after the ESP header.






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      In tunnel mode, the "inner" IP header carries the ultimate (IP)
      source and destination addresses, while an "outer" IP header
      contains the addresses of the IPsec "peers", e.g., addresses of
      security gateways.  Mixed inner and outer IP versions are allowed,
      i.e., IPv6 over IPv4 and IPv4 over IPv6.  In tunnel mode, ESP
      protects the entire inner IP packet, including the entire inner IP
      header.  The position of ESP in tunnel mode, relative to the outer
      IP header, is the same as for ESP in transport mode.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Transform protocols, IPsec protocols, Authentication Header

7.11.  NAT Traversal (NAT-T)

   Definition:

      The capability to support IPsec functionality in the presence of
      NAT devices.

   Discussion:

      NAT-Traversal requires some modifications to IKE as defined in
      [RFC3947].  Specifically, in phase 1, it requires detecting if the
      other end supports NAT-Traversal, and detecting if there are one
      or more NAT instances along the path from host to host.  In IKE
      Quick Mode, there is a need to negotiate the use of UDP
      encapsulated IPsec packets.

      NAT-T also describes how to transmit the original source and
      destination addresses to the corresponding IPsec Device.  The
      original source and destination addresses are used in transport
      mode to incrementally update the TCP/IP checksums so that they
      will match after the NAT transform (The NAT cannot do this,
      because the TCP/IP checksum is inside the UDP encapsulated IPsec
      packet).

   Issues:

      N/A







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   See Also:

      IKE, ISAKMP, IPsec Device

7.12.  IP Compression

   Definition:

      A mechanism as defined in [RFC2393] that reduces the size of the
      payload that needs to be encrypted.

   Discussion:

      IP payload compression is a protocol to reduce the size of IP
      datagrams.  This protocol will increase the overall communication
      performance between a pair of communicating hosts/gateways
      ("nodes") by compressing the datagrams, provided the nodes have
      sufficient computation power, through either CPU capacity or a
      compression coprocessor, and the communication is over slow or
      congested links.

      IP payload compression is especially useful when encryption is
      applied to IP datagrams.  Encrypting the IP datagram causes the
      data to be random in nature, rendering compression at lower
      protocol layers (e.g., PPP Compression Control Protocol [RFC1962])
      ineffective.  If both compression and encryption are required,
      compression must be applied before encryption.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IKE, ISAKMP, IPsec Device

7.13.  Security Context

   Definition:

      A security context is a collection of security parameters that
      describe the characteristics of the path that an IPsec Tunnel will
      take, all of the IPsec Tunnel parameters and the effects it has on
      the underlying protected traffic.  Security Context encompasses
      protocol suite and security policy.






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Discussion:

      In order to fairly compare multiple IPsec devices it is imperative
      that an accurate overview is given of all security parameters that
      were used to establish the IPsec Tunnels or manually created SAs
      and to secure the traffic between protected networks.  Security
      Context is not a metric; it is included to accurately reflect the
      test environment variables when reporting the methodology results.
      To avoid listing too much information when reporting metrics, we
      have divided the security context into an IKE context and an IPsec
      context.

      When merely discussing the behavior of traffic flows through IPsec
      devices, an IPsec context MUST be provided.  In other cases the
      scope of a discussion or report may focus on a more broad set of
      behavioral characteristics of the IPsec device, in which case both
      an IPsec and an IKE context MUST be provided.

      The IPsec context MUST consist of the following elements:

      *  Manual Keyed Tunnels versus IKE negotiated Tunnels

      *  Number of IPsec Tunnels or IPsec SA's

      *  IPsec protocol (AH or ESP)

      *  IPsec protocol mode (tunnel or transport)

      *  Authentication algorithm used by AH/ESP

      *  Encryption algoritm used ESP (if applicable)

      *  IPsec SA lifetime (traffic and time based)

      The IPsec Context MAY also list:

      *  Selectors

      *  Fragmentation handling

      The IKE Context MUST consist of the following elements:

      *  Number of IPsec Tunnels.

         +  IKE Phase 1 SA to IKE Phase 2 SA ratio (if applicable)

         +  IKE Phase 1 parameters




Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


            -  Authentication algorithm

            -  Encryption algorithm

            -  DH-Group

            -  SA lifetime (traffic and time based)

            -  Authentication mechanism (pre-shared key, RSA-sig,
               certificate, etc)

         +  IKE Phase 2 parameters

            -  IPsec protocol (part of IPsec context)

            -  IPsec protocol mode (part of IPsec context)

            -  Authentication algorithm (part of IPsec context)

            -  Encryption algorithm (part of IPsec context)

            -  DH-Group

            -  PFS used

            -  SA Lifetime (part of IPsec context)

      *  Keepalive or DPD values as defined in [I-D.ietf-ipsec-dpd]

      *  IP Compression [RFC2393]

      The IKE context MAY also list:

      *  Phase 1 mode (main or aggressive)

      *  Available bandwidth and latency to Certificate Authority server
         (if applicable)

   Issues:

      A Security Context will be an important element in describing the
      environment where protected traffic is traveling through.

   See Also:







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      IPsec Protocols, Transform Protocols, IKE Phase 1, IKE phase 2,
      Selectors, IPsec Tunnel


8.  Framesizes

8.1.  Layer3 clear framesize

   Definition:

      The total size of the unencrypted L3 PDU.

   Discussion:

      In relation to IPsec this is the size of the IP header and its
      payload.  It SHALL NOT include any encapsulations that MAY be
      applied before the PDU is processed for encryption.

      IPv4 example: 46 bytes PDU = 20 bytes IP header + 26 bytes
      payload.

   Measurement Units:

      Bytes

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Layer3 Encrypted Framesize, Layer2 Clear Framesize, Layer2
      Encrypted Framesize.

8.2.  Layer3 encrypted framesize

   Definition:

      The total size of the encrypted L3 PDU.

   Discussion:

      The size of the IP packet and its payload after encapsulations MAY
      be applied and the PDU is being processed by the transform.







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      For example, in IPv4, after a tunnel mode ESP 3DES/SHA1 transform
      has been applied an unencrypted or clear layer3 framesize of 46
      bytes Becomes 96 bytes:

           20 bytes outer IP header (tunnel mode)
           4 bytes SPI (ESP header)
           4 bytes Sequence (ESP Header)
           8 bytes IV (IOS ESP-3DES)
           46 bytes payload
           0 bytes pad (ESP-3DES 64 bit)
           1 byte Pad length (ESP Trailer)
           1 byte Next Header (ESP Trailer)
           12 bytes ESP-HMAC SHA1 96 digest

   Measurement Units:

      Bytes

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Layer3 Clear Framesize, Layer2 Clear Framesize, Layer2 Encrypted
      Framesize.


9.  Performance Metrics

9.1.  IPsec Tunnels Per Second (TPS)

   Definition:

      The measurement unit for the IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate tests.  The
      rate at which IPsec Tunnels are established per second.

   Discussion:

      According to [RFC2401] two IPsec Tunnels cannot be established
      between the same gateways with the same selectors.  This is to
      prevent overlapping IPsec Tunnels.  If overlapping IPsec Tunnels
      are attempted, the error will cause the IPsec Tunnel setup time to
      take longer than if the IPsec Tunnel setup was successful.  For
      this reason, a unique pair of selector sets are required for IPsec
      Tunnel Setup Rate testing.





Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Issues:

      A unique pair of selector sets are required for TPS testing.

   See Also:

      IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate Behavior, IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate, IKE
      Setup Rate, IPsec Setup Rate

9.2.  Tunnel Rekeys Per Seconds (TRPS)

   Definition:

      A metric that quantifies the number of IKE Phase 1 or Phase 2
      rekeys per seconds a DUT can correctly process.

   Discussion:

      This metric will be will be primary used with Tunnel Rekey
      behavior tests.

      TRPS will provide a metric used to see system behavior under
      stressful conditions where large volumes of SA's are being rekeyed
      at the same time or in a short timespan.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      Tunnel Rekey Behavior, Phase 1 Rekey Rate, Phase 2 Rekey Rate

9.3.  IPsec Tunnel Attempts Per Second (TAPS)

   Definition:

      A metric that quantifies the number of successful and unsuccessful
      IPsec Tunnel establishment requests per second.

   Discussion:

      This metric can be used to measure IKE DOS Resilience behavior
      test.







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      TAPS provides an important metric to validate the stability of an
      IPsec device, if stressed with valid (large number of IPsec tunnel
      establishments per seconds or TPS) or invalid (IKE DOS attacks of
      any style) tunnel establishment requests.  IPsec Tunnel setups
      offered to an IPsec devices can either fail due to lack of
      resources in the IPsec device to process all the requests or due
      to an IKE DOS attack (usually the former is a result of the
      latter).

   Issues:

      If the TAPS increases, the TPS usually decreases, due to burdening
      of the DUT with the DOS attack traffic.

   See Also:

      N/A


10.  Test Definitions

10.1.  Capacity

10.1.1.  IKE SA Capacity

   Definition:

      The maximum number of IKE SA's that can be sustained on an IPsec
      Device.

   Discussion:

      TBD

   Measurement Units:

      IKE SA's

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      N/A






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


10.1.2.  IPsec SA Capacity

   Definition:

      The maximum number of IPsec SA's that can be sustained on an IPsec
      Device.

   Discussion:

      TBD

   Measurement Units:

      IPsec SA's

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      N/A

10.2.  Throughput

10.2.1.  IPsec Throughput

   Definition:

      The maximum rate through an Active Tunnel at which none of the
      offered frames are dropped by the device under test.

   Discussion:

      The IPsec Throughput is almost identically defined as Throughput
      in [RFC1242], section 3.17.  The only difference is that the
      throughput is measured with a traffic flow getting encrypted and
      decrypted by an IPsec device.  IPsec Throughput is an end-to-end
      measurement.

      The metric can be represented in two variantions depending on
      where measurement is taken in the SUT.  One can look at throughput
      from a cleartext point of view i.e. find the maximum rate where
      clearpackets no longer get dropped.  This resulting rate can be
      recalculated with an encrypted framesize to represent the
      encryption throughput rate.  The latter is the preferred method of
      representation and shall be called the IPsec Throughput.




Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Measurement Units:

      Packets per seconds (pps)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Encryption Throughput, IPsec Decryption Throughput

10.2.2.  IPsec Encryption Throughput

   Definition:

      The maximum encryption rate through an Active Tunnel at which none
      of the offered cleartext frames are dropped by the device under
      test.

   Discussion:

      Since encryption throughput is not necessarily equal to the
      decryption throughput, both of the forwarding rates must be
      measured independently.  The independent forwarding rates have to
      measured with the help of an IPsec aware test device that can
      originate and terminate IPsec and IKE SA.  As defined in
      [RFC1242], measurements should be taken with an assortment of
      frame sizes.

   Measurement Units:

      Packets per seconds (pps)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Throughput, IPsec Decryption Throughput

10.2.3.  IPsec Decryption Throughput

   Definition:






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      The maximum decryption rate through an Active Tunnel at which none
      of the offered encrypted frames are dropped by the device under
      test.

   Discussion:

      Since encryption throughput is not necessarily equal to the
      decryption throughput, both of the forwarding rates must be
      measured independently.

      The independent forwarding rates have to be measured with the help
      of an IPsec aware test device that can originate and terminate
      IPsec and IKE SA.  As defined in [RFC1242], measurements should be
      taken with an assortment of frame sizes.

   Measurement Units:

      Packets per seconds (pps)

   Issues:

      Recommended test frame sizes will be addressed in future
      methodology document.

   See Also:

      IPsec Throughput, IPsec Encryption Throughput

10.2.4.  IPsec Fragmentation Throughput

   Definition:

      The maximum rate through an Active Tunnel at which none of the
      offered frames ,which require fragmentation after applying the
      transform overhead, are dropped by the device under test.

   Discussion:

      TBD

   Measurement Units:

      Packets per seconds (pps)

   Issues:






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      N/A

   See Also:

      N/A

10.2.5.  IPsec Reassembly Throughput

   Definition:

      The maximum rate through an Active Tunnel at which none of the
      offered fragmented frames are dropped by the device under test.

   Discussion:

      TBD

   Measurement Units:

      Packets per seconds (pps)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      N/A

10.3.  Latency

10.3.1.  IPsec Latency

   Definition:

      Time required to propagate a cleartext frame from the input
      interface of an initiator, through an Active Tunnel, to the output
      interface of the responder.

   Discussion:

      The IPsec Latency is the time interval starting when the end of
      the first bit of the cleartext frame reaches the input interface
      of the initiator and ending when the start of the first bit of the
      same cleartext frame is detected on the output interface of the
      responder.  The frame has passed through an Active Tunnel between
      an initiator and a responder and has been through an encryption
      and decryption cycle.



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Measurement Units:

      Time units with enough precision to reflect latency measurement.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Encryption Latency, IPsec Decryption Latency

10.3.2.  IPsec Encryption Latency

   Definition:

      The IPsec Encryption Latency is the time interval starting when
      the end of the first bit of the cleartext frame reaches the input
      interface, through an Active Tunnel, and ending when the start of
      the first bit of the encrypted output frame is seen on the output
      interface.

   Discussion:

      IPsec Encryption Latency is the latency introduced when encrypting
      traffic through an IPsec tunnel.

      Like encryption/decryption throughput, it is not always the case
      that encryption latency equals the decryption latency.  Therefore
      a distinction between the two has to be made in order to get a
      more accurate view of where the latency is the most pronounced.

      The independent encryption/decryption latencies have to be
      measured with the help of an IPsec aware test device that can
      originate and terminate IPsec and IKE SA.  As defined in
      [RFC1242], measurements should be taken with an assortment of
      frame sizes.

   Measurement Units:

      Time units with enough precision to reflect latency measurement.

   Issues:

      N/A






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 41]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   See Also:

      IPsec Latency, IPsec Decryption Latency

10.3.3.  IPsec Decryption Latency

   Definition:

      The IPsec decryption Latency is the time interval starting when
      the end of the first bit of the encrypted frame reaches the input
      interface, through an Active Tunnel, and ending when the start of
      the first bit of the decrypted output frame is seen on the output
      interface.

   Discussion:

      IPsec Decryption Latency is the latency introduced when decrypting
      traffic through an Active Tunnel.  Like encryption/decryption
      throughput, it is not always the case that encryption latency
      equals the decryption latency.  Therefore a distinction between
      the two has to be made in order to get a more accurate view of
      where the latency is the most pronounced.

      The independent encryption/decryption latencies have to be
      measured with the help of an IPsec aware test device that can
      originate and terminate IPsec and IKE SA's.  As defined in
      [RFC1242], measurements should be taken with an assortment of
      frame sizes.

   Measurement Units:

      Time units with enough precision to reflect latency measurement.

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Latency, IPsec Encryption Latency

10.3.4.  Time To First Packet

   Definition:







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 42]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      The Time To First Packet (TTFP) is the time required to process a
      cleartext packet from a traffic stream that requires encryption
      services when no IPsec Tunnel is present.

   Discussion:

      The Time To First Packet addresses the issue of responsiveness of
      an IPsec device by looking how long it takes to transmit a packet
      over Configured Tunnel.  The Time To First Packet MUST include the
      time to set up the established tunnel, triggered by the traffic
      flow (both phase 1 and phase 2 setup times SHALL be included) and
      the time it takes to encrypt and decrypt the packet on a
      corresponding peer.  In short it is the IPsec Tunnel setup time
      plus the propagation delay of the packet through the Active
      Tunnel.

      It must be noted that it is highly unlikely that the first packet
      of the traffic flow will be the packet that will be used to
      measure the TTFP.  There MAY be several protocol layers in the
      stack before the tunnel is formed and the traffic is forwarded,
      hence several packets COULD be lost during negotiation, for
      example, ARP and/or IKE.

   Measurement Units:

      Time units with enough precision to reflect a TTFP measurement.

   Issues:

      Only relevant when using IKE for tunnel negotiation.

10.4.  Frame Loss

10.4.1.  IPsec Frame Loss

   Definition:

      Percentage of cleartext frames that should have been forwarded
      through an Active Tunnel under steady state (constant) load but
      were dropped before encryption or after decryption.

   Discussion:

      The IPsec Frame Loss is almost identically defined as Frame Loss
      Rate in [RFC1242], section 3.6.  The only difference is that the
      IPsec Frame Loss is measured with a traffic flow getting encrypted
      and decrypted by an IPsec Device.  IPsec Frame Loss is an end-to-
      end measurement.



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 43]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Measurement Units:

      Percent (%)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Encryption Frame Loss, IPsec Decryption Frame Loss

10.4.2.  IPsec Encryption Frame Loss

   Definition:

      Percentage of cleartext frames that should have been encrypted
      through an Active Tunnel under steady state (constant) load but
      were dropped.

   Discussion:

      A DUT will always have an inherent forwarding limitation.  This
      will be more pronounced when IPsec is employed on the DUT.  There
      is a possibility that the offered traffic rate at the Active
      Tunnel is too high to be transported through the Active Tunnel and
      not all cleartext packets will get encrypted.  In that case, some
      percentage of the cleartext traffic will be dropped.  This drop
      percentage is called the IPsec Encryption Frame Loss.

   Measurement Units:

      Percent (%)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Frame Loss, IPsec Decryption Frame Loss

10.4.3.  IPsec Decryption Frame Loss

   Definition:






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 44]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      Percentage of encrypted frames that should have been decrypted
      through an Active Tunnel under steady state (constant) load but
      were dropped.

   Discussion:

      A DUT will also have an inherent forwarding limitation when
      decrypting packets.  When Active Tunnel encrypted traffic is
      offered at a costant load, there might be a possibility that the
      IPsec Device that needs to decrypt the traffic will not be able to
      perfom this action on all of the packets due to limitations of the
      decryption performance.  The percentage of encrypted frames that
      would get dropped under these conditions is called the IPsec
      Decryption Frame Loss.

   Measurement Units:

      Percent (%)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Frame Loss, IPsec Encryption Frame Loss

10.4.4.  IKE Phase 2 Rekey Frame Loss

   Definition:

      Number of frames dropped as a result of an inefficient IKE Phase 2
      rekey.

   Discussion:

      Normal operation of an IPsec Device would require that a rekey
      does not create temporary IPsec Frame Loss of a traffic stream
      that is protected by the IKE Phase 2 SA's (i.e.  IPsec SA's).
      Nevertheless there can be situations where IPsec Frame Loss occurs
      during this rekey process.

      This metric should be ideally zero but this may not be the case on
      IPsec Devices where IPsec funtionality is not a core feature.







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 45]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Measurement Units:

      Number of N-octet frames

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate

10.5.  Back-to-back Frames

10.5.1.  IPsec Back-to-back Frames

   Definition:

      A burst of cleartext frames, offered at a constant load that can
      be sent through an Active Tunnel without losing a single cleartext
      frame after decryption.

   Discussion:

      The IPsec Back-to-back Frames is almost identically defined as
      Back-to-back in [RFC1242], section 3.1.  The only difference is
      that the IPsec Back-to-back Frames is measured with a traffic flow
      getting encrypted and decrypted by an IPsec Device.  IPsec Back-
      to-back Frames is an end-to-end measurement.

   Measurement Units:

      Number of N-octet frames in burst.

   Issues:

      Recommended test frame sizes will be addressed in methodology
      document.

   See Also:

      IPsec Encryption Back-to-back frames, IPsec Decryption Back-to-
      back frames

10.5.2.  IPsec Encryption Back-to-back Frames






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 46]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Definition:

      A burst of cleartext frames, offered at a constant load that can
      be sent through an Active Tunnel without losing a single encrypted
      frame.

   Discussion:

      IPsec Encryption back-to-back frames is the measure of the maximum
      burst size that an IPsec Device can handle for encrypting traffic
      that it receives as plaintext.  Since it is not necessarily the
      case that the maximum burst size a DUT can handle for encryption
      is equal to the maximum burst size a DUT can handle for
      decryption, both of these capabilities must be measured
      independently.  The IPsec Encryption Back-to-back frame
      measurement has to be measured with the help of an IPsec aware
      test device that can decrypt the traffic to determine the validity
      of the encrypted frames.

   Measurement Units:

      Number of N-octet frames in burst.

   Issues:

      Recommended test frame sizes will be addressed in future
      methodology document.

   See Also:

      IPsec Back-to-back frames, IPsec Decryption Back-to-back frames

10.5.3.  IPsec Decryption Back-to-back Frames

   Definition:

      The number of encrypted frames, offered at a constant load, that
      can be sent through an Active Tunnel without losing a single
      cleartext frame.

   Discussion:

      IPsec Decryption Back-to-back frames is the measure of the maximum
      burst size that an IPsec Device can handle for decrypting traffic
      that it receives as encrypted traffic.  Since it is not
      necessarily the case that the maximum burst size a DUT can handle
      for decryption is equal to the maximum burst size a DUT can handle
      for encryption, both of these capabilities must be measured



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 47]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      independently.  The IPsec Decryption Back-to-back frame
      measurement has to be measured with the help of an IPsec aware
      test device that can determine the validity of the decrypted
      frames.

   Measurement Units:

      Number of N-octet frames in burst.

   Issues:

      Recommended test frame sizes will be addressed in methodology
      document.

   See Also:

      IPsec Back-to-back frames, IPsec Encryption back-to-back frames

10.6.  Tunnel Setup Behavior

10.6.1.  IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate

   Definition:

      The maximum number of IPsec Tunnels per second that an IPsec
      Device can successfully establish.

   Discussion:

      The Tunnel Setup Rate SHOULD be measured at varying number of
      IPsec Tunnels (1 Phase 1 SA and 2 Phase 2 SA's) on the DUT.
      Several factors may influence Tunnel Setup Rate, such as: TAPS
      rate, Background cleartext traffic load on the secure interface,
      Already established IPsec Tunnels, Authentication method such as
      pre-shared keys, RSA-encryption, RSA-signature, DSS Key sizes used
      (when using RSA/DSS).

   Measurement Units:

      Tunnels Per Second (TPS)

   Issues:

      N/A







Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 48]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   See Also:

      IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate, IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate, IPsec Tunnel Rekey
      Behavior

10.6.2.  IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate

   Definition:

      The maximum number of sucessful IKE Phase 1 SA's per second that
      an IPsec Device can establish.

   Discussion:

      The Phase 1 Setup Rate is a portion of the IPsec Tunnel Setup
      Rate.  In the process of establishing an IPsec Tunnel, it is
      interesting to know what the limiting factor of the IKE Finite
      State Machine (FSM) is i.e. is it limited by the Phase 1
      processing delays or rather by the Phase 2 processing delays.

   Measurement Units:

      Tunnels Per Second (TPS)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate, IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate, IPsec Tunnel
      Rekey Behavior

10.6.3.  IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate

   Definition:

      The maximum number of successfully IKE Phase 2 SA's per second
      that an IPsec Device can Only relevant when using IKE establish.

   Discussion:

      The IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate is a portion of the IPsec Tunnel Setup
      Rate.  For identical reasons why it is required to quantify the
      IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate, it is a good practice to know the
      processing delays involved in setting up an IKE Phase 2 SA for
      each direction of the protected traffic flow.




Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 49]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      IKE Phase 2 Setup Rates will ALWAYS be measured for multiples of
      two IKE Phase 2 SA's.

      Note that once you have the IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate and either the
      IKE Phase 1 or the IKE Phase 2 Setup Rate data, you can
      extrapolate the unmeasured metric.  It is however highly
      RECOMMENDED to measure all three metrics.

   Measurement Units:

      Tunnels Per Second (TPS)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IPsec Tunnel Setup Rate, IKE Phase 1 Setup Rate, IPsec Tunnel
      Rekey Behavior

10.7.  IPsec Tunnel Rekey Behavior

10.7.1.  IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate

   Definition:

      The number of IKE Phase 1 SA's that can be succesfully re-
      establish per second.

   Discussion:

      Although the IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate has less impact on the
      forwarding behavior of traffic that requires security services
      then the IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate, it can pose a large burden on the
      CPU or network processor of the IPsec Device.  Due to the highly
      computational nature of a Phase 1 exchange, it may impact the
      stability of Active Tunnels in the network when the IPsec Device
      fails to properly rekey an IKE Phase 1 SA.

   Measurement Units:

      Tunnel Rekeys per second (TRPS)

   Issues:






Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 50]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


      N/A

   See Also:

      IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate

10.7.2.  IKE Phase 2 Rekey Rate

   Definition:

      The number of IKE Phase 2 SA's that can be succesfully re-
      negotiated per second.

   Discussion:

      Although many implementations will usually derive new keying
      material before the old keys expire, there may still be a period
      of time where frames get dropped before the IKE Phase 2 tunnels
      are successfully re-established.  There may also be some packet
      loss introduced when the handover of traffic is done from the
      expired IPsec SA's to the newly negotiated IPsec SA's.  To measure
      the IKE Phase 2 rekey rate, the measurement will require an IPsec
      aware test device to act as a responder when negotiating the new
      IKE Phase 2 keying material.

      The test methodology report must specify if PFS is enabled in
      reported security context.

   Measurement Units:

      Tunnel Rekeys per second (TRPS)

   Issues:

      N/A

   See Also:

      IKE Phase 1 Rekey Rate

10.8.  IPsec Tunnel Failover Time

   Definition:

      Time required to recover all IPsec Tunnels on a stanby IPsec
      Device, after a catastrophic failure occurs on the active IPsec
      Device.




Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 51]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


   Discussion:

      Recovery time required to re-establish all IPsec Tunnels and
      reroute all traffic on a standby node or other failsafe system
      after a failure has occurred in the DUT/SUT.  Failure can include
      but are not limited to a catastrophic IPsec Device failure, a
      encryption engine failure, link outage.  The recovery time is
      delta between the point of failure and the time the first packet
      is seen on the last restored IPsec Tunnel on the backup device.

   Measurement Units:

      Time units with enough precision to reflect IPsec Tunnel Failover
      Time.

   Issues:

      N/A


11.  Security Considerations

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


12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the following individual for
   their help and participation of the compilation and editing of this
   document: Debby Stopp, Ixia.


13.  Contributors

   The authors would like to acknowledge the following individual for
   their significant help, guidance, and contributions to this document:
   Paul Hoffman, VPNC, Sunil Kalidindi, Ixia, Brian Talbert, MCI.


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

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



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 52]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   [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.

   [RFC2451]  Pereira, R. and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 53]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


              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.

   [RFC3947]  Kivinen, T., Swander, B., Huttunen, A., and V. Volpe,
              "Negotiation of NAT-Traversal in the IKE", RFC 3947,
              January 2005.

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

   [I-D.ietf-ipsec-dpd]
              Huang, G., Beaulieu, S., and D. Rochefort, "A Traffic-
              Based Method of Detecting Dead IKE Peers",
              draft-ietf-ipsec-dpd-04 (work in progress), October 2003.

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

   [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>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [Designing Network Security]
              Kaeo, M., "Designing Network Security",  ISBN: 1578700434,
              Published: May 07, 1999; Copyright: 1999, 1999.

   [SKEME]    Krawczyk, H., "SKEME: A Versatile Secure Key Exchange
              Mechanism for Internet",  from IEEE Proceedings of the



Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 54]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


              1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems
              Security,
              URI http://www.research.ibm.com/security/skeme.ps, 1996.
















































Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 55]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


Authors' Addresses

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

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


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

   Email: herckt@cisco.com


   Michele Bustos
   IXIA
   26601 W. Agoura Rd.
   Calabasas, CA  91302
   US

   Phone: +1 (818)444-3244
   Email: mbustos@ixiacom.com






















Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 56]


Internet-Draft      Benchmarking IPsec - Terminology       November 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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


Disclaimer of Validity

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


Copyright Statement

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


Acknowledgment

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




Kaeo, et al.               Expires May 5, 2006                 [Page 57]


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