Subject: Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:47:16 +0000

BMWG,

As a participant, I have the following comments on this draft.
(Unfortunately, I started with version 04, but most of these
comments are still relevant.)

Al

[acm] Comments through Section 5 10-2018

    Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
                draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-04

Abstract

   This document provides benchmarking terminology and methodology for
   next-generation network security devices including next-generation
   firewalls (NGFW), intrusion detection and prevention solutions (IDS/
   IPS) and unified threat management (UTM) implementations.  The
   document aims to strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility
   and transparency of benchmarks and to align the test methodology with
   today's increasingly complex layer 7 application use cases.  The main
   areas covered in this document are test terminology, traffic profiles
   and benchmarking methodology for NGFWs to start with.
[acm]
suggest s/ to start with//

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.
[acm]
That's about 3 months too early...

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents
...
     7.9.  HTTPS Transaction Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
       7.9.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     7.10. HTTPS Throughput  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
[acm] 
Although it's premature to say so before reaching the section,
one concern here will be repeatability across test devices.

       7.10.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
       7.10.2.  Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       7.10.3.  Test Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       7.10.4.  Test Procedures and Expected Results . . . . . . . .  44
     7.11. Concurrent TCP/HTTPS Connection Capacity  . . . . . . . .  45
       7.11.1.  Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   8.  Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   12. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   13. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   Appendix A.  NetSecOPEN Basic Traffic Mix . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  54

1.  Introduction

   15 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially (RFC 2647, RFC 3511).  The
   requirements for network security element performance and
   effectiveness have increased tremendously since then.  Security
   function implementations have evolved to more advanced areas and have
   diversified into intrusion detection and prevention, threat
   management, analysis of encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of
   growing importance, well-defined and reproducible key performance
   indicators (KPIs) are increasingly needed: They enable fair and
   reasonable comparison of network security functions.  All these
[acm]
I think we call these KPI's Benchmarks in BMWG.
(but I'll keep reading)

   reasons have led to the creation of a new next-generation firewall
   benchmarking document.

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

2.  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 [RFC2119] .
[acm]
There's a new reference in addition to 2119 (8174) and new suggested
text for this section.

3.  Scope

   This document provides testing terminology and testing methodology
   next-generation firewalls and related security functions.  It covers
   two main areas: Performance benchmarks and security effectiveness
   testing.  The document focuses on advanced, realistic, and
   reproducible testing methods.  Additionally it describes test bed
   environments, test tool requirements and test result formats.

4.  Test Setup

   Test setup defined in this document will be applicable to all of the
   benchmarking test scenarios described in Section 7.

4.1.  Testbed Configuration

   Testbed configuration MUST ensure that any performance implications
   that are discovered during the benchmark testing aren't due to the
   inherent physical network limitations such as number of physical
   links and forwarding performance capabilities (throughput and
   latency) of the network devise in the testbed.  For this reason, this
[acm] s/devise/device/

   document recommends to avoid external devices such as switch and
   router in the testbed as possible.
[acm} make plural: switches and routers 

   In the typical deployment, the security devices (DUT/SUT) will not
   have a large number of entries in MAC or ARP tables, which impact the
   actual DUT/SUT performance due to MAC and ARP/ND table lookup
   processes.  Therefore, depend on number of used IP address in client
{acm] s/depend/depending/

   and server side, it is recommended to connect Layer 3 device(s)
[acm] indicate Client and Server in the Figures
[acm] s/recommend/RECOMMEND/ ?? use requirements terms where appropriate!

   between test equipment and DUT/SUT as shown in Figure 1.

   If the test equipment is capable to emulate layer 3 routing
[acm] s/to emulate/of emulating/
   functionality and there is no need for test equipment ports
   aggregation, it is recommended to configure the test setup as shown
   in Figure 2.
[acm] 
What device's ports are being aggregated?  DUT/SUT or Test Equipment?
Show the additional ports/physical connections in the Figure... 

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

    +-------------------+      +-----------+      +--------------------+
    |Aggregation Switch/|      |           |      | Aggregation Switch/|
    | Router            +------+  DUT/SUT  +------+ Router             |
    |                   |      |           |      |                    |
    +----------+--------+      +-----------+      +--------+-----------+
               |                                           |
               |                                           |
   +-----------+-----------+                   +-----------+-----------+
   |                       |                   |                       |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   | | Emulated Router(s)| |                   | | Emulated Router(s)| |
   | |     (Optional)    | |                   | |     (Optional)    | |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   | |      Clients      | |                   | |      Servers      | |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   |                       |                   |                       |
   |    Test Equipment     |                   |    Test Equipment     |
   +-----------------------+                   +-----------------------+

                    Figure 1: Testbed Setup - Option 1

   +-----------------------+                   +-----------------------+
   | +-------------------+ |   +-----------+   | +-------------------+ |
   | | Emulated Router(s)| |   |           |   | | Emulated Router(s)| |
   | |    (Optional)     | +----- DUT/SUT  +-----+    (Optional)     | |
   | +-------------------+ |   |           |   | +-------------------+ |
   | +-------------------+ |   +-----------+   | +-------------------+ |
   | |     Clients       | |                   | |      Servers      | |
   | +-------------------+ |                   | +-------------------+ |
   |                       |                   |                       |
   |   Test Equipment      |                   |   Test Equipment      |
   +-----------------------+                   +-----------------------+

                    Figure 2: Testbed Setup - Option 2

4.2.  DUT/SUT Configuration

   An unique DUT/SUT configuration MUST be used for all of the
   benchmarking tests described in Section 7.  Since each DUT/SUT will
   have their own unique configuration, users SHOULD configure their
   device with the same parameters that would be used in the actual
   deployment of the device or a typical deployment.  Also it is
   mandatory to enable security features on the DUT/SUT in order to
   achieve maximum security coverage for a specific deployment scenario.

   This document attempts to define the recommended security features
   which SHOULD be consistently enabled for all of the benchmarking

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   tests described in Section 7.  The table below describes the
   recommended sets of feature list which SHOULD be configured on the
[acm] s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/ ??
   DUT/SUT.  In order to improve repeatability, a summary of the DUT
   configuration including description of all enabled DUT/SUT features
   MUST be published with the benchmarking results.

                  +----------------------------------------------------+
                  |                         Device                     |
                  +---------------------------------+---+---+---+------+
                  |                           |     |   |   |   | SSL  |
                  |             NGFW          |NGIPS|ADC|WAF|BPS|Broker|
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |              |       |Included  |Added to| Future test standards  |
   |DUT Features  |Feature|in initial|future  | to be developed        |
   |              |       |Scope     |Scope   |                        |
   +------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+------+
   |SSL Inspection|   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IDS/IPS       |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Web Filtering |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Antivirus     |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Anti Spyware  |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Anti Botnet   |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |DLP           |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |DDoS          |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Certificate   |   x   |          |     x  |     |   |   |   |      |
   |Validation    |       |          |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Logging and   |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   |Reporting     |       |          |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application   |   x   |     x    |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   |Identification|       |          |        |     |   |   |   |      |
   +----------------------+----------+--------+-----+---+---+---+------+

                       Table 1: DUT/SUT Feature List

   In addition, it is also recommended to configure a realistic number
   of access policy rules on the DUT/SUT.  This document determines the
   number of access policy rules for three different class of DUT/SUT.
   The classification of the DUT/SUT MAY be based on its maximum

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   supported throughput performance number defined in the vendor data
   sheet.  This document classifies the DUT/SUT in three different
   categories; namely small, medium and maximum.

   The recommended throughput values for the following classes are;

   Small - supported throughput less than 5Gbit/s

   Medium - supported throughput greater than 5Gbit/s and less than
   10Gbit/s

   Large - supported throughput greater than 10Gbit/s
[acm] 
This is somewhat unchartered territory for BMWG. Previously we have let
the capacity-related benchmarks speak for themselves w.r.t. size.
Also, size doesn't appear to influence the features, just the 
number of access policy rules configured for testing.
Maybe the solution is to categorize three sets of policy rules as
small, medium and large. Then each test designer can select the 
appropriate size set(s), rather than assign the DUT/SUT to a category...

So, in Table 2, s/DUT\/SUT/Category of/

   The access rule defined in the table 2 MUST be configured from top to
   bottom in correct order shown in the table.  The configured access
   policy rule MUST NOT block the test traffic used for the benchmarking
   test scenarios.

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   +------------------------------------------------+------------------+
   |                                                |  DUT/SUT         |
   |                                                |  Classification  |
   |                                                |  # Rules         |
   +-----------+-----------+-----------------+------------+------+-----+
   |           |   Match   |                 |      |     |      |     |
   | Rules Type|   Criteria|  Description    |Action|Small|Medium|Large|
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application|Application|Any application  |block |  10 |  20  |  50 |
   |layer      |           |traffic NOT      |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |included in the  |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |test traffic     |      |     |      |     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Transport  |Src IP and |Any src IP use in|block |  50 | 100  | 250 |
   |layer      |TCP/UDP    |the test AND any |      |     |      |     |
   |           |Dst ports  |dst ports NOT    |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |used in the test |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |traffic          |      |     |      |     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IP layer   |Src/Dst IP |Any src/dst IP   |block |  50 | 100  | 250 |
   |           |           |NOT used in the  |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |test             |      |     |      |     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Application|Application|Applications     |allow |  10 |  10  |  10 |
   |layer      |           |included in the  |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |test traffic     |      |     |      |     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Transport  |Src IP and |Half of the src  |allow |   1 |   1  |   1 |
   |layer      |TCP/UDP    |IP used in the   |      |     |      |     |
   |           |Dst ports  |test AND any dst |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |ports used in the|      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |test traffic. One|      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |rule per subnet  |      |     |      |     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |IP layer   |Src IP     |The rest of the  |allow |   1 |   1  |   1 |
   |           |           |src IP subnet    |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |range used in the|      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |test. One rule   |      |     |      |     |
   |           |           |per subnet       |      |     |      |     |
   +-----------+-----------------------------+------+-----+------+-----+

                       Table 2: DUT/SUT Access List

4.3.  Test Equipment Configuration

   In general, test equipment allows configuring parameters in different
   protocol level.  These parameters thereby influencing the traffic
   flows which will be offered and impacting performance measurements.

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   This document attempts to explicitly specify which test equipment
   parameters SHOULD be configurable, any such parameter(s) MUST be
   noted in the test report.

4.3.1.  Client Configuration

   This section specifies which parameters SHOULD be considerable while
[acm] s/considerable/configurable/
[acm] *** I'm going to stop adding Grammar and word-choice comments at this point. ***
There are many tools that can help you!

   configuring emulated clients using test equipment.  Also this section
   specifies the recommended values for certain parameters.

4.3.1.1.  TCP Stack Attributes

   The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion
   avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on
   every TCP connection between client and server endpoints.  The
   default IPv4 and IPv6 MSS segments size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and
   1440 bytes and a TX and RX receive windows of 32768 bytes.  Delayed
[acm]
32k max recv window seems too low, maybe you also assume very low RTT?
[acm]
Initial Window size for Slow-start is a critical parameter.

   ACKs are permitted, but it SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec
   delay timeout or 3000 in bytes before a forced ACK.  Up to 3 retries
   SHOULD be allowed before a timeout event is declared.  All traffic
   MUST set the TCP PSH flag to high.  The source port range SHOULD be
   in the range of 1024 - 65535.  Internal timeout SHOULD be dynamically
   scalable per RFC 793.

4.3.1.2.  Client IP Address Space

   The sum of the client IP space SHOULD contain the following
   attributes.  The traffic blocks SHOULD consist of multiple unique,
   continuous static address blocks.  A default gateway is permitted.
   The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'.

   The following equation can be used to determine the required total
   number of client IP address.

   Desired total number of client IP = Target throughput [Mbit/s] /
   Throughput per IP address [Mbit/s]
[acm] 
Question: are the "Ideas" below actually different client scenarios
that you would want to test? Or, is the WG supposed to discuss these
ideas and choose one?

   (Idea 1)  6-7 Mbps per IP (e.g 1,400-1,700 IPs per 10Gbit/s
             throughput)

   (Idea 2)  0.1-0.2 Mbps per IP (e.g 50,000-100,000 IPs per 10Gbit/s
             throughput)

   Based on deployment and usecase scenario, client IP addresses SHOULD
   be distributed between IPv4 and IPv6 type.  This document recommends
   using the following ratio(s) between IPv4 and IPv6:
   
[acm] from the description above, these seem like different 
Address Family scenarios (not Ideas).

   (Idea 1)  100 % IPv4, no IPv6

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   (Idea 2)  80 % IPv4, 20 % IPv6

   (Idea 3)  50 % IPv4, 50 % IPv6

   (Idea 4)  0 % IPv4, 100 % IPv6

4.3.1.3.  Emulated Web Browser Attributes

   The emulated web browser contains attributes that will materially
   affect how traffic is loaded.  The objective is to emulate a modern,
   typical browser attributes to improve realism of the result set.

   For HTTP traffic emulation, the emulated browser must negotiate HTTP
   1.1.  HTTP persistency MAY be enabled depend on test scenario.  The
   browser CAN open multiple TCP connections per Server endpoint IP at
   any time depending on how many sequential transactions are needed to
   be processed.  Within the TCP connection multiple transactions can be
   processed if the emulated browser has available connections.  The
   browser MUST advertise a User-Agent header.  Headers will be sent
   uncompressed.  The browser should enforce content length validation.

   For encrypted traffic, the following attributes shall define the
   negotiated encryption parameters.  The tests MUST use TLSv1.2 or
   higher with a record size of 16383, commonly used cipher suite and
   key strength.  Session reuse or ticket resumption may be used for
   subsequent connections to the same Server endpoint IP.  The client
   endpoint must send TLS Extension SNI information when opening up a
   security tunnel.  Server certificate validation should be disabled.
   Server certificate validation should be disabled.  Cipher suite and
   certificate size should be defined in the parameter session of
   benchmarking tests.

4.3.2.  Backend Server Configuration

   This document attempts to specify which parameters should be
   considerable while configuring emulated backend servers using test
   equipment.

4.3.2.1.  TCP Stack Attributes
[acm]
Is this the same as Client? I suggest to highlight the differences 
between Client and Server configs - maybe organize the sections to
minimize repeated text with differences between C-S at the end of 
a section.

   The TCP stack SHOULD use a TCP Reno variant, which include congestion
   avoidance, back off and windowing, retransmission and recovery on
   every TCP connection between client and server endpoints.  The
   default IPv4 MSS segment size MUST be set to 1460 bytes and a TX and
   RX receive windows of at least 32768 bytes.  Delayed ACKs are
   permitted but SHOULD be limited to either a 200 msec delay timeout or
   3000 in bytes before a forced ACK.  Up to 3 retries SHOULD be allowed
   before a timeout event is declared.  All traffic MUST set the TCP PSH

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   flag to high.  The source port range SHOULD be in the range of 1024 -
   65535.  Internal timeout should be dynamically scalable per RFC 793.

4.3.2.2.  Server Endpoint IP Addressing

   The server IP blocks should consist of unique, continuous static
   address blocks with one IP per Server FQDN endpoint per test port.
   The IPv4 ToS byte should be set to '00'.  The source mac address of
   the server endpoints shall be the same emulating routed behavior.
   Each Server FQDN should have it's own unique IP address.  The Server
   IP addressing should be fixed to the same number of FQDN entries.

4.3.2.3.  HTTP / HTTPS Server Pool Endpoint Attributes

   The emulated server pool for HTTP should listen on TCP port 80 and
   emulated HTTP version 1.1 with persistence.  For HTTPS server, the
   pool must have the same basic attributes of an HTTP server pool plus
   attributes for SSL/TLS.  The server must advertise a server type.
   For HTTPS server, TLS 1.2 or higher must be used with a record size
   of 16383 bytes and ticket resumption or Session ID reuse enabled.
   The server must listen on port TCP 443.  The server shall serve a
   certificate to the client.  It is required that the HTTPS server also
   check Host SNI information with the Fully Qualified Domain Name
   (FQDN).  Client certificate validation should be disabled.  Cipher
   suite and certificate size should be defined in the parameter session
   of benchmarking tests.

4.3.3.  Traffic Flow Definition

   The section describes the traffic pattern between the client and
   server endpoints.  At the beginning of the test, the server endpoint
   initializes and will be in a ready to accept connection state
   including initialization of the TCP stack as well as bound HTTP and
   HTTPS servers.  When a client endpoint is needed, it will initialize
   and be given attributes such as the MAC and IP address.  The behavior
   of the client is to sweep though the given server IP space,
   sequentially generating a recognizable service by the DUT.  Thus, a
   balanced, mesh between client endpoints and server endpoints will be
   generated in a client port server port combination.  Each client
   endpoint performs the same actions as other endpoints, with the
   difference being the source IP of the client endpoint and the target
   server IP pool.  The client shall use Fully Qualified Domain Names in
   Host Headers and for TLS 1.2 Server Name Indication (SNI).

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

4.3.3.1.  Description of Intra-Client Behavior

   Client endpoints are independent of other clients that are
   concurrently executing.  When a client endpoint initiate traffic,
   this section will describe how the steps though different services.
[acm] something is missing in the sentence above

   Once initialized, the user should randomly hold (perform no
[acm] simulated user?  or, the test automation?  
[acm] a definitions section will help to sort-out terminology.

   operation) for a few milliseconds to allow for better randomization
   of start of client traffic.  The client will then either open up a
   new TCP connection or connect to a TCP persistence stack still open
   to that specific server.  At any point that the service profile may
   require encryption, a TLS 1.2 encryption tunnel will form presenting
   the URL request to the server.  The server will then perform an SNI
   name check with the proposed FQDN compared to the domain embedded in
   the certificate.  Only when correct, will the server process the
   object.  The initial object to the server may not have a fixed size;
   its size is based on benchmarking tests described in Section 7.
   Multiple additional sub-URLs (Objects on the service page) may be
   requested simultaneously.  This may or may not be to the same server
   IP as the initial URL.  Each sub-object will also use a conical FQDN
   and URL path, as observed in the traffic mix used.

4.3.4.  Traffic Load Profile

   The loading of traffic will be described in this section.  The
   loading of an traffic load profile has five distinct phases: Init,
   ramp up, sustain, ramp down/close, and collection.
[acm] Suggest to help the reader: these phases should be a numbered list.
Also, it appears that each TRIAL has these 5 phases (Trial has specific
meaning in BMWG RFCs.)
Finally, this topic of phases seems to go beyond configuration, to procedure.
It may be better as a separate section.

   Within the Init phase, test bed devices including the client and
   server endpoints should negotiate layer 2-3 connectivity such as MAC
   learning and ARP.  Only after successful MAC learning or ARP/ND
   resolution shall the test iteration move to the next phase.  No
   measurements are made in this phase.  The minimum recommended time
   for init phase is 5 seconds.  During this phase the emulated clients
   SHOULD NOT initiate any sessions with the DUT/SUT, in contrast, the
   emulated servers should be ready to accept requests from DUT/SUT or
   from emulated clients.

   In the ramp up phase, the test equipment should start to generate the
   test traffic.  It should use a set approximate number of unique
   client IP addresses actively to generate traffic.  The traffic should
   ramp from zero to desired target objective.  The target objective
   will be defined for each benchmarking test.  The duration for the
   ramp up phase must be configured long enough, so that the test
   equipment do not overwhelm DUT/SUT's supported performance metrics
   namely; connection setup rate, concurrent connection and application
   transaction.  The recommended time duration for the ramp up phase is
   180- 300 seconds.  No measurements are made in this phase.

Balarajah & Rossenhoevel Expires January 3, 2019               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Benchmarking for NGFW performance          July 2018

   In the sustain phase, the test equipment should keep to generate
   traffic t constant target value for a constant number of active
   client IPs.  The recommended time duration for sustain phase is 600
   seconds.  This is the phase where measurements occur.

   In the ramp down/close phase, no new connection is established and no
   measurements are made.  The recommend duration of this phase is
   between 180 to 300 seconds.

   The last phase is administrative and will be when the tester merges
   and collates the report data.

5.  Test Bed Considerations

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 2:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
> 
> BMWG,
> 
> At our three meetings so far this year, the BMWG reviewed a version of
> the Internet Draft on
> 
> Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05
> 
> The BMWG has already adopted a milestone on our charter:
> 
> Aug 2018 	Methodology for Next-Gen Firewall Benchmarking to IESG Review
> (in retrospect, this milestone was quite aspirational!)
> 
> This message, therefore, starts a call for adoption on:
> 
> Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05
> 
> to run until Friday, November 9, 2018.
> 
> Please reply to [email-masked] indicating:
> 
> (1) whether you support the adoption of the draft
>    as the basis document for the existing milestone
> 
> (2) whether you commit to reviewing the WG document if adopted
> 
> 
> thanks for your consideration of the draft, and regards,
> 
> Al
> bmwg co-chair

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:50:24 +0000

OPSEC WG,

Cross-posting this call for adoption, there was interest
and presentation of this topic in the past @OPSEC.

Al
bmwg co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 2:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance

BMWG,

Al
bmwg co-chair