Internet Engineering Task Force M. Hamilton Internet-Draft BreakingPoint Systems Intended status: Informational S. Banks Expires: March 17, 2012 Cisco Systems September 14, 2011 Benchmarking Methodology for Content-Aware Network Devices draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-00 Abstract This document defines a set of test scenarios and metrics that can be used to benchmark content-aware network devices. More specifically, these scenarios are designed to most accurately predict performance of these devices when subjected to relevant traffic patterns. This document will operate within the constraints of the Benchmarking Working Group charter, namely black box characterization in a laboratory environment. 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 http://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 March 17, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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 (http://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 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 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 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Clients and Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Traffic Generation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Discussion of Network Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Framework for Traffic Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.6. Multiple Client/Server Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7. Device Configuration Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7.1. Network Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7.2. Network Address Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7.3. TCP Stack Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7.4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Maximum Application Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.2.1. Application-Layer Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.4.1. Maximum Application Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.4.2. Application Flow Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.4.3. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.4.4. Application Flow Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Application Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.2.1. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.4.1. Maximum Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.4.2. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.4.3. Maximum Application Flow Rate . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.4.4. Application Flow Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.4.5. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.4.6. Application Flow Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3. Malicious Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 4.3.2.1. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4. Malformed Traffic Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.2. Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.4. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Appendix A: Example Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 1. Introduction Content-aware and deep packet inspection (DPI) device deployments have grown significantly in recent years. No longer are devices simply using Ethernet and IP headers to make forwarding decisions. This class of device now uses application-specific data to make these decisions. For example, a web-application firewall (WAF) may use search criteria upon the HTTP uniform resource indicator (URI)[1] to decide whether a HTTP GET method may traverse the network. In the case of lawful/legal intercept technology, a device could use the phone number within the Session Description Protocol[11] to determine whether a voice-over-IP phone may be allowed to connect. In addition to the development of entirely new classes of devices, devices that could historically be classified as 'stateless' or raw forwarding devices are now performing DPI functionality. Devices such as core and edge routers are now being developed with DPI functionality to make more intelligent routing and forwarding decisions. The Benchmarking Working Group (BMWG) has historically produced Internet Drafts and Requests for Comment that are focused specifically on creating output metrics that are derived from a very specific and well-defined set of input parameters that are completely and unequivocally reproducible from test bed to test bed. The end goal of such methodologies is to, in the words of the RFC 2544 [2], reduce "specsmanship" in the industry. Existing BMWG work has certainly met this stated goal. The BMWG has historically avoided the use of the term "realistic" throughout all of its drafts and RFCs. While this document will not explicitly use this term, the end goal of the terminology and methodology is to generate performance metrics that will be as close as possible to equivalent metrics in a production environment. It should be further noted than any metrics acquired from a production network SHOULD be captured according to the policies and procedures of the IPPM or PMOL working groups. An explicit non-goal of this document is to replace existing methodology/terminology pairs such as RFC 2544 [2]/RFC 1242 [3] or RFC 3511 [4]/RFC 2647 [5]. The explicit goal of this document is to create a methodology and terminology pair that is more suited for modern devices while complementing the data acquired using existing BMWG methodologies. Existing BMWG work generally relies on completely repeatable input stimulus, expecting fully repeatable output. For unicast UDP streams, this makes complete sense. This document does not assume completely repeatable input stimulus. The nature of application-driven networks is such that a single dropped packet inherently changes the input stimulus from a network perspective. While application flows will be specified in great Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 detail, it simply is not practical to require totally repeatable input stimulus. 1.1. Requirements Language 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 [6]. 2. Scope Content-aware devices take many forms, shapes and architectures. These devices are advanced network interconnect devices that inspect deep into the application payload of network data packets to do classification. They may be as simple as a firewall that uses application data inspection for rule set enforcement, or they may have advanced functionality such as performing protocol decoding and validation, anti-virus, anti-spam and even application exploit filtering. This document is strictly focused on examining performance and robustness across a focused set of metrics: throughput(min/max/avg/ sample std dev), transaction rates(successful/failed), application response times, concurrent flows, and unidirectional packet latency. None of the metrics captured through this methodology are specific to a device, nor do they characterize the functional behavior of those devices. The metrics are implementation independent. Functional testing of the DUT is outside the scope of this methodology. Devices such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention devices, application delivery controllers, deep packet inspection devices, wide-area network(WAN) optimization devices, and unified threat management systems generally fall into the content-aware category. While this list may become obsolete, these are a subset of devices that fall under this scope of testing. 3. Test Setup This document will be applicable to most test configurations and will not be confined to a discussion on specific test configurations. 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, if the actual deployment is unknown. In order to improve repeatability, the DUT configuration SHOULD be published with the final benchmarking results. If available, command-line scripts used Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 to configured the DUT and any configuration information for the tester SHOULD be published with the final results 3.1. Test Considerations 3.2. Clients and Servers Content-aware device testing SHOULD involve multiple clients and multiple servers. As with RFC 3511 [4], this methodology will use the terms virtual clients/servers because both the client and server will be represented by the tester and not actual clients/servers. Similarly defined in RFC 3511 [4], a data source may emulate multiple clients and/or servers within the context of the same test scenario. The test report SHOULD indicate the number of virtual clients/servers used during the test. IANA has reserved address ranges for laboratory characterization. These are defined for IPv4 and IPv6 by RFC 2544 Appendix C [2] and RFC 5180 Section 5.2 [7] respectively and SHOULD be consulted prior to testing. 3.3. Traffic Generation Requirements The explicit purposes of content-aware devices vary widely, but these devices use information deeper inside the application flow to make decisions and classify traffic. This methodology will utilize traffic flows that resemble real application traffic without utilizing captures from live production networks. Application Flows, as defined in RFC 2722 [8] are able to be well-defined without simply referring to a network capture. An example traffic template is defined and listed in Section 5 of this document. A user of this methodology is free to utilize the example mix as provided in the appendix. If a user of this methodology understands the traffic patterns in their production network, that user SHOULD use the template provided in Section 5 to describe a traffic mix appropriate for their environment. The test tool SHOULD be able to create application flows between every client and server, regardless of direction. The tester SHOULD be able to open TCP connections on multiple destination ports and SHOULD be able to direct UDP traffic to multiple destination ports. 3.4. Discussion of Network Mathematics Prior to executing the methodology as outlined in the following sections, it is imperative to understand the implications of utilizing representative application flows for the traffic content of the benchmarking effort. One interesting aspect of utilizing application flows is that each flow is inherently different from every other application flow. The content of each flow will vary Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 from application to application, and in most cases, even varies within the same type of application flow. The following description of the methodology will individually benchmark every individual type and subset of application flow, prior to performing similar tests with a traffic mix as specified either by the example mix in Section 5, or as defined by the user of this methodology. The purpose of this process is to ensure that any performance implications that are discovered during the mixed testing aren't due to the inherent physical network limitations. As an example of this phenomena, it is useful to examine a network device inserted into a single path, as illustrated in the following diagram. +----------+ +---+ 1gE | DUT/ | 1gE +---+ |C/S|------| SUT |------|C/S| +---+ +----------+ +---+ Simple Inline DUT Configuration Figure 1: Single Path Example For the purpose of this discussion, let's take a theoretical application flow that utilizes UDP for the transport layer. Assume that the sample transaction we will be using to model this particular flow requires 10 UDP datagrams to complete the transaction. For simplicity, each datagram within the flow is exactly 64 bytes, including associated Ethernet, IP, and UDP overhead. With any network device,there are always three metrics which interact with each other: number of concurrent application flows, number of application flows per second, and layer-7 throughput. Our example test bed is a single-path device connected with 1 gigabit Ethernet links. The purpose of this benchmark effort is to quantify the number of application flows per second that may be processed through our device under test. Let's assume that the result from our scenario is that the DUT is able to process 10,000 application flows per second. The question is whether that ceiling is the actual ceiling of the device, or if it is actually being limited by one of the other metrics. If we do the appropriate math, 10000 flows per second, with each flow at 640 total bytes means that we are achieving a throughput of roughly 49 Mbps. This is dramatically less than the 1 gigabit physical link we are using. We can conclude that 10,000 flows per second is in fact the performance limit of the device. If we change the example slightly and increase the size of each datagram to 1312 bytes, then it becomes necessary to recompute the math. Assuming the same observed DUT limitation of 10,000 flows per Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 second, it must be ensured that this is an artifact of the DUT, and not of physical limitations. For each flow, we'll require 104,960 bits. 10,000 flows per second implies a throughput of roughly 1 Gbps. At this point, we cannot definitively answer whether the DUT is actually limited to 10,000 flows per second. If we are able to modify the scenario, and utilize 10 Gigabit interfaces, then perhaps the flow per second ceiling will be reached at a higher number than 10,000. This example illustrates why a user of this methodology SHOULD benchmark each application variant individually to ensure that the cause of a measured limit is fully understood 3.5. Framework for Traffic Specification The following table SHOULD be specified for each application flow variant. o Flow Size in Bits o Percentage of Aggregate Flows: 25% o Transport Protocol(s): TCP,UDP o Destination Port(s): 80 3.6. Multiple Client/Server Testing In actual network deployments, connections are being established between multiple clients and multiple servers simultaneously. Device vendors have been known to optimize the operation of their devices for easily defined patterns. The connection sequence ordering scenarios a device will see on a network will likely be much less deterministic. In fact, many application flows have multiple layer 4 connections within a single flow, with client and server reversing roles. This methodology makes no assumptions about flow initiation sequence across multiple ports. 3.7. Device Configuration Considerations The configuration of the DUT may have an effect on the observed results of the following methodology. A comprehensive, but certainly not exhaustive, list of potential considerations is listed below. 3.7.1. Network Addressing The IANA has issued a range of IP addresses to the BMWG for purposes of benchmarking. Please refer to RFC 2544 [2] and RFC 5180 [7] for Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 more details. 3.7.2. Network Address Translation Many content-aware devices are capable of performing Network Address Translation (NAT)[5]. If the final deployment of the DUT will have this functionality enabled, then the DUT SHOULD also have it enabled during the execution of this methodology. It MAY be beneficial to perform the test series in both modes in order to determine the performance differential when using NAT. The test report SHOULD indicate whether NAT was enabled during the testing process. 3.7.3. TCP Stack Considerations The IETF has historically provided guidance and information on TCP stack considerations. This methodology is strictly focused on performance metrics at layers above 4, thus does not specifically define any TCP stack configuration parameters of either the tester or the DUTs. The TCP configuration of the tester SHOULD remain constant across all DUTs in order to ensure comparable results. While the following list of references is not exhaustive, each document contains a relevant discussion on TCP stack considerations. Congestion control algorithms are discussed in Section 2 of RFC 3148 [9] with even more detailed references. TCP receive and congestion window sizes are discussed in detail in RFC 6349 [10]. 3.7.4. Other Considerations Various content-aware devices will have widely varying feature sets. In the interest of representative test results, the DUT features that will likely be enabled in the final deployment SHOULD be used. This methodology is not intended to advise on which features should be enabled, but to suggest using actual deployment configurations. 4. Benchmarking Tests Each of the following benchmark scenarios SHOULD be run with each of the single application flow templates. Upon completion of all iterations, the mixed test SHOULD be completed, subject to the traffic mix as defined by the user. 4.1. Maximum Application Flow Rate Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 4.1.1. Objective To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to establish and complete application flows as defined by draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-term-00. 4.1.2. Setup Parameters The following parameters SHOULD be used and reported for all tests: 4.1.2.1. Application-Layer Parameters For each application protocol in use during the test run, the table provided in Section 3.5 SHOULD be published. 4.1.3. Procedure The test SHOULD generate application network traffic that meets the conditions of Section 3.3. The traffic pattern SHOULD begin with an application flow rate of 10% of expected maximum. The test SHOULD be configured to increase the attempt rate in units of 10% up through 110% of expected maximum. The duration of each loading phase SHOULD be at least 30 seconds. This test MAY be repeated, each subsequent iteration beginning at 5% of expected maximum and increasing session establishment rate to 10% more than the maximum observed from the previous test run. This procedure MAY be repeated any number of times with the results being averaged together. 4.1.4. Measurement The following metrics MAY be determined from this test, and SHOULD be observed for each application protocol within the traffic mix: 4.1.4.1. Maximum Application Flow Rate The test tool SHOULD report the maximum rate at which application flows were completed, as defined by RFC 2647 [5], Section 3.7. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol present within the traffic mix. 4.1.4.2. Application Flow Duration The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average application duration, as defined by RFC 2647 [5], Section 3.9. This duration SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol present within the traffic mix. Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 4.1.4.3. Packet Loss The test tool SHOULD report the number of flow packets lost or dropped from source to destination. 4.1.4.4. Application Flow Latency The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average amount of time an application flow member takes to traverse the DUT, as defined by RFC 1242 [3], Section 3.13. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol present within the traffic mix. 4.2. Application Throughput 4.2.1. Objective To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to forward bits when using application flows as defined in the previous sections. 4.2.2. Setup Parameters The following parameters SHOULD be used and reported for all tests: 4.2.2.1. Parameters The same parameters as described in Section 4.1.2 SHOULD be used. 4.2.3. Procedure This test will attempt to send application flows through the device at a flow rate of 30% of the maximum, as observed in Section 4.1. This procedure MAY be repeated with the results from each iteration averaged together. 4.2.4. Measurement The following metrics MAY be determined from this test, and SHOULD be observed for each application protocol within the traffic mix: 4.2.4.1. Maximum Throughput The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average application throughput. Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 4.2.4.2. Packet Loss The test tool SHOULD report the number of network packets lost or dropped from source to destination. 4.2.4.3. Maximum Application Flow Rate The test tool SHOULD report the maximum rate at which application flows were completed, as defined by RFC 2647 [5], Section 3.7. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol present within the traffic mix. 4.2.4.4. Application Flow Duration The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average application duration, as defined by RFC 2647 [5], Section 3.9. This duration SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol present within the traffic mix. 4.2.4.5. Packet Loss The test tool SHOULD report the number of flow packets lost or dropped from source to destination. 4.2.4.6. Application Flow Latency The test tool SHOULD report the minimum, maximum and average amount of time an application flow member takes to traverse the DUT, as defined by RFC 1242 [3], Section 3.13. This rate SHOULD be reported individually for each application protocol present within the traffic mix. 4.3. Malicious Traffic Handling 4.3.1. Objective To determine the effects on performance that malicious traffic may have on the DUT. While this test is not designed to characterize accuracy of detection or classification, it MAY be useful to record these measurements as specified below. 4.3.2. Setup Parameters 4.3.2.1. Parameters The same parameters as described in Section 4.1.2 SHOULD be used. Additionally, the following parameters SHOULD be used and reported Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 for all tests: o Attack List: A listing of the malicious traffic that was generated by the test. 4.3.3. Procedure This test will utilize the procedures specified previously in Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2.3. When performing the procedures listed previously, the tester should generate malicious traffic representative of the final network deployment. The mix of attacks MAY include software vulnerability exploits, network worms, back-door access attempts, network probes and other malicious traffic. If a DUT can be run with and without the attack mitigation, both procedures SHOULD be run with and without the feature enabled on the DUT to determine the affects of the malicious traffic on the baseline metrics previously derived. If a DUT does not have active attack mitigation capabilities, this procedure SHOULD be run regardless. Certain malicious traffic could affect device performance even if the DUT does not actively inspect packet data for malicious traffic. 4.3.4. Measurement The metrics specified by Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.2.4 SHOULD be determined from this test. 4.4. Malformed Traffic Handling 4.4.1. Objective To determine the effects on performance and stability that malformed traffic may have on the DUT. 4.4.2. Setup Parameters The same parameters SHOULD be used for Transport-Layer and Application Layer Parameters previously specified in Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.2.2. 4.4.3. Procedure This test will utilize the procedures specified previously in Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.2.3. When performing the procedures listed previously, the tester should generate malformed traffic at all protocol layers. This is commonly known as fuzzed traffic. Fuzzing techniques generally modify portions of packets, including checksum errors, invalid protocol options, and improper protocol Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 conformance. This test SHOULD be run on a DUT regardless of whether it has built-in mitigation capabilities. 4.4.4. Measurement For each protocol present in the traffic mix, the metrics specified by Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.2.4 MAY be determined. This data may be used to ascertain the effects of fuzzed traffic on the DUT. 5. Appendix A: Example Test Case This appendix shows an example case of a protocol mix that may be used with this methodology. Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------+ | Application Flow | Options | Value | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------+ | Web 1kB | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 1kB | | | Flow Percentage | 15% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | TCP | | | Destination Port(s) | 80 | | Web 10kB | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 10kB | | | Flow Percentage | 15% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | TCP | | | Destination Port(s) | 80 | | Web 100kB | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 100kB | | | Flow Percentage | 15% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | TCP | | | Destination Port(s) | 80 | | BitTorrent Movie Download | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 500 MB | | | Flow Percentage | 5% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | TCP | | | Destination Port(s) | 6881-6889 | | SMTP Email | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 50 kB | | | Flow Percentage | 10% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | TCP | | | Destination Port(s) | 25 | | IMAP Email | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 100 kB | | | Flow Percentage | 15% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | TCP | | | Destination Port(s) | 143 | | DNS | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 2 kB | | | Flow Percentage | 10% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | UDP | | | Destination Port(s) | 53 | | RTP | | | | | Flow Size (L7) | 100 MB | | | Flow Percentage | 10% | | | Transport Protocol(s) | UDP | | | Destination Port(s) | 20000-65535 | +---------------------------+-----------------------+-------------+ Table 1: Sample Traffic Pattern Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 6. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see the update of RFC 2434 [12] for a guide). If the draft does not require IANA to do anything, the section contains an explicit statement that this is the case (as above). If there are no requirements for IANA, the section will be removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor. 7. Security Considerations Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints RFC 2544 [2]. The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management network 8. References 8.1. Normative References [1] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [2] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999. [3] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. [4] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin, "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC 3511, April 2003. [5] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance", RFC 2647, August 1999. [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Methodology for Content-Aware Devices September 2011 [7] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008. [8] Brownlee, N., Mills, C., and G. Ruth, "Traffic Flow Measurement: Architecture", RFC 2722, October 1999. [9] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July 2001. [10] Constantine, B., Forget, G., Geib, R., and R. Schrage, "Framework for TCP Throughput Testing", RFC 6349, August 2011. 8.2. Informative References [11] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. [12] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Authors' Addresses Mike Hamilton BreakingPoint Systems Austin, TX 78717 US Phone: +1 512 636 2303 Email: mhamilton@breakingpoint.com Sarah Banks Cisco Systems San Jose, CA 95134 US Email: sabanks@cisco.com Hamilton & Banks Expires March 17, 2012 [Page 17]