Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-opsec
draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-opsec
Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: October 2005
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Shankar Rao
Qwest Communications
July 2005
Methodology for Benchmarking
Accelerated Stress with Operational Security
<draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-opsec-00.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
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.
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
ABSTRACT
Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
being managed. To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous operational
conditions, which is known as Stress Testing. This document provides
the Methodology for performing Stress Benchmarking of networking
devices when subjected to instability as described in [7].
Descriptions of test topology, benchmarks and reporting format are
provided in addition to procedures for conducting various test cases.
This methodology is based upon the accelerated stress methodology
guidelines [6] and is to be used with the companion terminology
document [4].
Poretsky and Rao [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 2
2. Existing definitions ....................................... 2
3. Test Setup.................................................. 2
4. Test Cases.................................................. 3
4.1 Restart Under Load......................................... 3
4.2 Destination Control Processor.............................. 3
4.3 Destination Control Processor with Rate-Limiting........... 4
4.4 Destination Interfaces..................................... 4
4.5 DoS Attack................................................. 5
5. Security Considerations..................................... 5
6. Normative References........................................ 5
7. Informative References...................................... 6
8. Author's Address............................................ 6
1. Introduction
Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
being managed. To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous operational
conditions, which is known as Stress Testing. This document provides
the Methodology for performing Stress Benchmarking of networking
devices when subjected to instability as described in the OpSec
Requirements for Service Providers [7]. Descriptions of
Test Topology, Benchmarks and Reporting Format are provided in
addition to procedures for conducting various test cases. This
methodology is based upon the accelerated stress methodology
guidelines [6] and is to be used with the companion terminology
document [4].
2. Existing definitions
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[8]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document.
Terms related to Accelerated Stress Benchmarking are defined in [4].
3. Test Setup
Test Setup, Test Topologies, Considerations, and Reporting Format
MUST be as described in [6].
Poretsky and Rao [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
4. Test Cases
4.1 Restart Under Load
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance of the DUT
during restart when stress conditions are applied.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Restart DUT. This marks the beginning on the recovery period.
6. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
7. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
NOTE 1: Restart via the DUT's Command Line Interface rather than
power cycle is typically more stressful than power cycle
since hardware can maintain state.
NOTE 2: Instability Conditions are not applied for this test case.
Results
DUT should re-establish all control protocol sessions and have
a Recovery Time [4] that is not infinite.
4.2 Destination Control Processor
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
the Control Processor of the DUT.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
Configuration Set
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
to all DUT interfaces. Traffic MUST be configured so that the
offered load has a destination address that is the DUT's central
control processor
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.
It is possible that significant session loss is observed.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
4.3 Destination Control Processor with Rate-Limiting
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
the Control processor of the DUT.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Apply policy filter to rate-limit traffic arriving at the Central
Processor to be only 1% of the offered load.
3. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
4. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
Configuration Set
5. Report benchmarks (for stability)
6. Apply Instability Conditions
7. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
to all DUT interfaces. Traffic MUST be configured so that the
offered load has a destination address that is the DUT's central
control processor
8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
11. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
Results will vary with specific vendor implementations. There should be
no session loss observed.
4.4 Destination Interfaces
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
the interfaces of the DUT.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
Configuration Set
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
to all DUT interfaces. Traffic MUST be configured so that the
offered load has destination addresses of the interfaces receiving
traffic.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Poretsky and Rao [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
Results
Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.
There should be no session loss observed.
4.5 DoS Attack
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance of the
DUT during stress conditions while experiencing a DoS attack.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Initiate DoS Attack against DUT. It is RECOMMENDED that
the SYN Flood attack be used for the DoS attack.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
DUT should be able to defend against DoS attack without additional
packet loss or session loss.
5. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
networks.
6. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[2] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", RFC 2285, June 1998.
[3] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[4] Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Terminology for Accelerated
Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-05,
work in progress, July 2005.
[5] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-05,
work in progress, July 2005.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
[6] Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Methodology Guidelines for Accelerated
Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-03,
work in progress, July 2005.
[7] RFC 3871 "Operational Security Requirements for Large
Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure.
G. Jones, Ed.. IETF, September 2004.
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
7. Informative References
[NANOG25] "Core Router Evaluation for Higher Availability", Scott
Poretsky, NANOG 25, June 8, 2002, Toronto, CA.
[IEEECQR] "Router Stress Testing to Validate Readiness for Network
Deployment", Scott Poretsky, IEEE CQR 2003.
[CONVMETH] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-05,
work in progress, July 2005.
8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Shankar Rao
1801 California Street
8th Floor
Qwest Communications
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com
Poretsky and Rao [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intel-
lectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this docu-
ment 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 stan-
dard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Warranty
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.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 7]
