Subject: RE: [bmwg] Terminology for Benchmarking IPSec Devices Work Propos al

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:15:12 -0800

It makes sense that the BMWG undertake some sort of IPSEC benchmarking.
While this proposal is a first draft, I would like to see a revised proposal
with the following considerations:

1. IPv6!  There has been a lot of implementation of IPv6.  At Yokohama, we
had a presentation on IPv6 experiences from users.  We should not exclude
IPv6 from any new work.

2. What different metrics, methodologies are being introduced?  Why not just
use RFC1242, RFC2289, or RFC2432?  The table of Contents looks like a
laundry list of everything done before with the word IPSEC prefixed.  The
only thing I found missing was Differentiate Services.

3. More focused.  You have a "Tunnel Setup Rate", "Phase 1 Setup Rate", and
a "Phase 2 Setup Rate".  You will have to define why a tunnel is not a phase
1 and phase 2.  I see a lot of work (maybe a separate proposal) in just the
setup rate.

Jerry.

___________________________________________________________ 
Jerry Perser                         Spirent Communications
Director of Test Methodology         SmartBits Division 
Phone: 818.676.2320                  26750 Agoura Road 
Lab:   818.676.2337                  Calabasas, CA, 91302 
Cell:  818.292.6457                  Corp:  818.676.2300

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:15:12 -0800

Jerry.

---

From: Michele Bustos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:46:34 -0800

Dear JP,
My comments inline:

-Thank you sir.

While this proposal is a first draft, I would like to see a revised proposal
with the following considerations:
-I think it is impractical to rewrite the proposal, however your valid
comments can be incorporated into the actual draft(s).  See below:

1. IPv6!  There has been a lot of implementation of IPv6.  At Yokohama, we
had a presentation on IPv6 experiences from users.  We should not exclude
IPv6 from any new work.
-We feel that metrics/methodology do not change with Ipv6.  
-We do NOT preclude IPv6. For a first draft terminology document, this is
irrelevant.

2. What different metrics, methodologies are being introduced?  Why not just
use RFC1242, RFC2289, or RFC2432?  The table of Contents looks like a
laundry list of everything done before with the word IPSEC prefixed.  The
only thing I found missing was Differentiate Services.
-Methodology is beyond the scope of a terminology document. 
-We are working on a methodology draft, in accordance with BMWG tradition,
as a separate proposal. 
-The proposed draft is, obviously, based on prior IPSec work. We are NOT
trying to redefine the IPSec protocol terms. However, the draft defines the
terms specific to "benchmarking IPSec devices". 

-We have. 
-The word "tunnel" used alone, with no protocol attached means:
1 IKE SA + 2 IPSec SA's

IKE tunnel = 1 IKE SA
IPSEC tunnel = 2 IPSEC SA's
-a- tunnel = 1 IKE SA + 2 IPSEC SA's

-Thank you for your support,
/m

---

From: Michele Bustos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:46:34 -0800

Dear JP,
My comments inline:

-We have. 

IKE tunnel = 1 IKE SA

---

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:54:51 -0800

> comments can be incorporated into the actual draft(s).  See below:

While it may be impractical, it was a suggestion that may help this work
become a BMWG draft versus an individual draft.  You will be doing a lot of
revising.  Weather you chose to do it in the beginning or toward the end is
your decision.  This comment was to point you to the easier path.
 
> -We do NOT preclude IPv6. For a first draft terminology 

To quote second paragraph of your proposal "At this time, any testing that
pertains to IPv6 is out of scope, ..."  You need to explain the difference
between "IPv6 is out of scope" and "We do NOT preclude IPv6".  I find the
two statement contradict.  The Authors should come to a general consensus on
IPv6 support before proposing a draft.

As for "irrelevant", you have a growing IPv6 community you are excluding.
At what version of the draft are you planning to include them?

> terms specific to "benchmarking IPSec devices". 

Metrics?  Or is this just RFC1242 over IPSEC (or a secure Network
Interconnection Device)?

If you look at BMWG tradition, you will see that they do not list all the
protocols they are testing over.  For example RFC2432 (and the draft
methodology) just measures encapsulation throughput.  They do not list each
type of encapsulation.  How is testing NULL encryption (section 5.21.1)
throughput (section 6.3.1) any different than DES-CBC, 3DES-CBC, or AES-CBC?

Jerry.