1 files changed, 1459 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2647.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2647.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7dc05a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2647.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1459 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                       D. Newman
+Request for Comments: 2647                        Data Communications
+Category: Informational                                   August 1999
+
+
+           Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction...................................................2
+   2. Existing definitions...........................................2
+   3. Term definitions...............................................3
+   3.1 Allowed traffic...............................................3
+   3.2 Application proxy.............................................3
+   3.3 Authentication................................................4
+   3.4 Bit forwarding rate...........................................5
+   3.5 Circuit proxy.................................................6
+   3.6 Concurrent connections........................................6
+   3.7 Connection....................................................7
+   3.8 Connection establishment......................................9
+   3.9 Connection establishment time.................................9
+   3.10 Connection maintenance......................................10
+   3.11 Conection overhead..........................................11
+   3.12 Connection teardown.........................................11
+   3.13 Connection teardown time....................................12
+   3.14 Data source.................................................12
+   3.15 Demilitarized zone..........................................13
+   3.16 Firewall....................................................13
+   3.17 Goodput.....................................................14
+   3.18 Homed.......................................................15
+   3.19 Illegal traffic.............................................15
+   3.20 Logging.....................................................16
+   3.21 Network address translation.................................16
+   3.22 Packet filtering............................................17
+   3.23 Policy......................................................17
+   3.24 Protected network...........................................18
+   3.25 Proxy.......................................................19
+   3.26 Rejected traffic............................................19
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   3.27 Rule set....................................................20
+   3.28 Security association........................................20
+   3.29 Stateful packet filtering...................................21
+   3.30 Tri-homed...................................................22
+   3.31 Unit of transfer............................................22
+   3.32 Unprotected network.........................................23
+   3.33 User........................................................23
+   4. Security considerations.......................................24
+   5. References....................................................25
+   6. Acknowledgments...............................................25
+   7. Contact Information...........................................25
+   8. Full Copyright Statement......................................26
+
+1. Introduction
+
+   This document defines terms used in measuring the performance of
+   firewalls. It extends the terminology already used for benchmarking
+   routers and switches with definitions specific to firewalls.
+
+   Forwarding rate and connection-oriented measurements are the primary
+   metrics used in this document.
+
+   Why do we need firewall performance measurements? First, despite the
+   rapid rise in firewall deployment, there is no standard method of
+   performance measurement. Second, implementations vary widely, making
+   it difficult to do direct performance comparisons. Finally, more and
+   more organizations are deploying firewalls on internal networks
+   operating at relatively high speeds, while most firewall
+   implementations remain optimized for use over relatively low-speed
+   wide-area connections. As a result, users are often unsure whether
+   the products they buy will stand up to relatively heavy loads.
+
+2. Existing definitions
+
+   This document uses the conceptual framework established in RFCs 1242
+   and 2544 (for routers) and RFC 2285 (for switches). The router and
+   switch documents contain discussions of several terms relevant to
+   benchmarking the performance of firewalls. Readers should consult the
+   router and switch documents before making use of this document.
+
+   This document uses the definition format described in RFC 1242,
+   Section 2. The sections in each definition are: definition,
+   discussion, measurement units (optional), issues (optional), and
+   cross-references.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3. Term definitions
+
+3.1 Allowed traffic
+
+   Definition:
+     Packets forwarded as a result of the rule set of the device under
+     test/system under test (DUT/SUT).
+
+   Discussion:
+     Firewalls typically are configured to forward only those packets
+     explicitly permitted in the rule set. Forwarded packets must be
+     included in calculating the bit forwarding rate or maximum bit
+     forwarding rate of the DUT/SUT. All other packets must not be
+     included in bit forwarding rate calculations.
+
+     This document assumes 1:1 correspondence of allowed traffic offered
+     to the DUT/SUT and forwarded by the DUT/SUT. There are cases where
+     the DUT/SUT may forward more traffic than it is offered; for
+     example, the DUT/SUT may act as a mail exploder or a multicast
+     server. Any attempt to benchmark forwarding rates of such traffic
+     must include a description of how much traffic the tester expects
+     to be forwarded.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     policy
+     rule set
+
+3.2 Application proxy
+
+   Definition:
+     A proxy service that is set up and torn down in response to a
+     client request, rather than existing on a static basis.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Circuit proxies always forward packets containing a given port
+     number if that port number is permitted by the rule set.
+     Application proxies, in contrast, forward packets only once a
+     connection has been established using some known protocol. When the
+     connection closes, a firewall using applicaton proxies rejects
+     individual packets, even if they contain port numbers allowed by a
+     rule set.
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     circuit proxy
+     rule sets
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     circuit proxy
+     proxy
+     rejected traffic
+     rule set
+
+3.3 Authentication
+
+   Definition:
+     The process of verifying that a user requesting a network resource
+     is who he, she, or it claims to be, and vice versa.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Trust is a critical concept in network security. Any network
+     resource (such as a file server or printer) typically requires
+     authentication before granting access.
+
+     Authentication takes many forms, including but not limited to IP
+     addresses; TCP or UDP port numbers; passwords; external token
+     authentication cards; and biometric identification such as
+     signature, speech, or retina recognition systems.
+
+     The entity being authenticated might be the client machine (for
+     example, by proving that a given IP source address really is that
+     address, and not a rogue machine spoofing that address) or a user
+     (by proving that the user really is who he, she, or it claims to
+     be).  Servers might also authenticate themselves to clients.
+
+     Testers should be aware that in an increasingly mobile society,
+     authentication based on machine-specific criteria such as an IP
+     address or port number is not equivalent to verifying that a given
+     individual is making an access request. At this writing systems
+     that verify the identity of users are typically external to the
+     firewall, and may introduce additional latency to the overall SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   See also:
+     user
+
+3.4 Bit forwarding rate
+
+   Definition:
+     The number of bits per second of allowed traffic a DUT/SUT can be
+     observed to transmit to the correct destination interface(s) in
+     response to a specified offered load.
+
+   Discussion:
+     This definition differs substantially from section 3.17 of RFC 1242
+     and section 3.6.1 of RFC 2285.
+
+     Unlike both RFCs 1242 and 2285, this definition introduces the
+     notion of different classes of traffic: allowed, illegal, and
+     rejected (see definitions for each term). For benchmarking
+     purposes, it is assumed that bit forwarding rate measurements
+     include only allowed traffic.
+
+     Unlike RFC 1242, there is no reference to lost or retransmitted
+     data.  Forwarding rate is assumed to be a goodput measurement, in
+     that only data successfully forwarded to the destination interface
+     is measured.  Bit forwarding rate must be measured in relation to
+     the offered load.  Bit forwarding rate may be measured with
+     differed load levels, traffic orientation, and traffic
+     distribution.
+
+     Unlike RFC 2285, this measurement counts bits per second rather
+     than frames per second. Testers interested in frame (or frame-like)
+     measurements should use units of transfer.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     bits per second
+
+   Issues:
+     Allowed traffic vs. rejected traffic
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     goodput
+     illegal traffic
+     rejected traffic
+     unit of transfer
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3.5 Circuit proxy
+
+   Definition:
+     A proxy service that statically defines which traffic will be
+     forwarded.
+
+   Discussion:
+     The key difference between application and circuit proxies is that
+     the latter are static and thus will always set up a connection if
+     the DUT/SUT's rule set allows it. For example, if a firewall's rule
+     set permits ftp connections, a circuit proxy will always forward
+     traffic on TCP port 20 (ftp-data) even if no control connection was
+     first established on TCP port 21 (ftp-control).
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     application proxy
+     rule sets
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     application proxy
+     proxy
+     rejected traffic
+     rule set
+
+3.6 Concurrent connections
+
+   Definition:
+     The aggregate number of simultaneous connections between hosts
+     across the DUT/SUT, or between hosts and the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     The number of concurrent connections a firewall can support is just
+     as important a metric for some users as maximum bit forwarding
+     rate.
+
+     While "connection" describes only a state and not necessarily the
+     transfer of data, concurrency assumes that all existing connections
+     are in fact capable of transferring data. If a data cannot be sent
+     over a connection, that connection should not be counted toward the
+     number of concurrent connections.
+
+     Further, this definition assumes that the ability (or lack thereof)
+     to transfer data on a given connection is solely the responsibility
+     of the DUT/SUT. For example, a TCP connection that a DUT/SUT has
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     left in a FIN_WAIT_2 state clearly should not be counted. But
+     another connection that has temporarily stopped transferring data
+     because some external device has restricted the flow of data is not
+     necessarily defunct. The tester should take measures to isolate
+     changes in connection state to those effected by the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     Concurrent connections
+     Maximum number of concurrent connections
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     connections
+     connection establishment time
+     connection overhead
+
+3.7 Connection
+
+   Definition:
+     A state in which two hosts, or a host and the DUT/SUT, agree to
+     exchange data using a known protocol.
+
+   Discussion:
+     A connection is an abstraction describing an agreement between two
+     nodes: One agrees to send data and the other agrees to receive it.
+
+     Connections might use TCP, but they don't have to. Other protocols
+     such as ATM also might be used, either instead of or in addition to
+     TCP connections.
+
+     What constitutes a connection depends on the application. For a
+     native ATM application, connections and virtual circuits may be
+     synonymous. For TCP/IP applications on ATM networks (where multiple
+     TCP connections may ride over a single ATM virtual circuit), the
+     number of TCP connections may be the most important consideration.
+
+     Additionally, in some cases firewalls may handle a mixture of
+     native TCP and native ATM connections. In this situation, the
+     wrappers around user data will differ. The most meaningful metric
+     describes what an end-user will see.
+
+     Data connections describe state, not data transfer. The existence
+     of a connection does not imply that data travels on that connection
+     at any given time, although if data cannot be forwarded on a
+     previously established connection that connection should not be
+     considered in any aggregrate connection count (see concurrent
+     connections).
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     A firewall's architecture dictates where a connection terminates.
+     In the case of application or circuit proxy firewalls, a connection
+     terminates at the DUT/SUT. But firewalls using packet filtering or
+     stateful packet filtering designs act only as passthrough devices,
+     in that they reside between two connection endpoints. Regardless of
+     firewall architecture, the number of data connections is still
+     relevant, since all firewalls perform some form of connection
+     maintenance; at the  very least, all check connection requests
+     against their rule sets.
+
+     Further, note that connection is not an atomic unit of measurement
+     in that it does not describe the various steps involved in
+     connection setup, maintenance, and teardown. Testers may wish to
+     take separate measurements of each of these components.
+
+     When benchmarking firewall performance, it's important to identify
+     the connection establishment and teardown procedures, as these must
+     not be included when measuring steady-state forwarding rates.
+     Further, forwarding rates must be measured only after any security
+     associations have been established.
+
+     Though it seems paradoxical, connectionless protocols such as UDP
+     may also involve connections, at least for the purposes of firewall
+     performance measurement. For example, one host may send UDP packets
+     to another across a firewall. If the destination host is listening
+     on the correct UDP port, it receives the UDP packets. For the
+     purposes of firewall performance measurement, this is considered a
+     connection.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     concurrent connections
+     connection
+     connection establishment time
+     maximum number of concurrent connections
+     connection teardown time
+
+   Issues:
+     application proxy vs. stateful packet filtering
+     TCP/IP vs. ATM
+
+     connection-oriented vs. connectionless
+
+   See also:
+     data source
+     concurrent connections
+     connection establishment
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     connection establishment time
+     connection teardown
+     connection teardown time
+
+3.8 Connection establishment
+
+   Definition:
+     The data exchanged between hosts, or between a host and the
+     DUT/SUT, to initiate a connection.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Connection-oriented protocols like TCP have a proscribed
+     handshaking procedure when launching a connection. When
+     benchmarking firewall performance, it is import to identify this
+     handshaking procedure so that it is not included in measurements of
+     bit forwarding rate or UOTs per second.
+
+     Testers may also be interested in measurements of connection
+     establishment time through or with a given DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   See also:
+     connection
+     connection establishement time
+     connection maintenance
+     connection teardown
+
+   Issues:
+     not applicable
+
+3.9 Connection establishment time
+
+   Definition:
+     The length of time needed for two hosts, or a host and the DUT/SUT,
+     to agree to set up a connection using a known protocol.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Each connection-oriented protocol has its own defined mechanisms
+     for setting up a connection. For purposes of benchmarking firewall
+     performance, this shall be the interval between receipt of the
+     first bit of the first octet of the packet carrying a connection
+     establishment request on a DUT/SUT interface until transmission of
+     the last bit of the last octet of the last packet of the connection
+     setup traffic headed in the opposite direction.
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     This definition applies only to connection-oriented protocols such
+     as TCP. For connectionless protocols such as UDP, the notion of
+     connection establishment time is not meaningful.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     Connection establishment time
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     concurrent connections
+     connection
+     connection maintenance
+
+3.10 Connection maintenance
+
+   Definition:
+     The data exchanged between hosts, or between a host and the
+     DUT/SUT, to ensure a connection is kept alive.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Some implementations of TCP and other connection-oriented protocols
+     use "keep-alive" data to maintain a connection during periods where
+     no user data is exchanged.
+
+     When benchmarking firewall performance, it is useful to identfy
+     connection maintenance traffic as distinct from UOTs per second.
+     Given that maintenance traffic may be characterized by short bursts
+     at periodical intervals, it may not be possible to describe a
+     steady-state forwarding rate for maintenance traffic. One possible
+     approach is to identify the quantity of maintenance traffic, in
+     bytes or bits, over a given interval, and divide through to derive
+     a measurement of maintenance traffic forwarding rate.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     maintenance traffic
+     forwarding rate
+
+   See also:
+     connection
+     connection establishment time
+     connection teardown
+     connection teardown time
+
+   Issues:
+     not applicable
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3.11 Connection overhead
+
+   Definition:
+     The degradation in bit forwarding rate, if any, observed as a
+     result of the addition of one connection between two hosts through
+     the DUT/SUT, or the addition of one connection from a host to the
+     DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     The memory cost of connection establishment and maintenance is
+     highly implementation-specific. This metric is intended to describe
+     that cost in a method visible outside the firewall.
+
+     It may also be desirable to invert this metric to show the
+     performance improvement as a result of tearing down one connection.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     bit forwarding rate
+
+   Issues:
+
+3.12 Connection teardown
+
+   Definition:
+     The data exchanged between hosts, or between a host and the
+     DUT/SUT, to close a connection.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Connection-oriented protocols like TCP follow a stated procedure
+     when ending a connection. When benchmarking firewall performance,
+     it is important to identify the teardown procedure so that it is
+     not included in measurements of bit forwarding rate or UOTs per
+     second.
+
+     Testers may also be interested in measurements of connection
+     teardown time through or with a given DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   See also:
+     connection teardown time
+
+   Issues:
+     not applicable
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3.13 Connection teardown time
+
+   Definition:
+     The length of time needed for two hosts, or a host and the DUT/SUT,
+     to agree to tear down a connection using a known protocol.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Each connection-oriented protocol has its own defined mechanisms
+     for dropping a connection. For purposes of benchmarking firewall
+     performance, this shall be the interval between receipt of the
+     first bit of the first octet of the packet carrying a connection
+     teardown request on a DUT/SUT interface until transmission of the
+     last bit of the last octet of the last packet of the connection
+     teardown traffic headed in the opposite direction.
+
+     This definition applies only to connection-oriented protocols such
+     as TCP. For connectionless protocols such as UDP, the notion of
+     connection teardown time is not meaningful.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     Connection teardown time
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     concurrent connections
+     connection
+     connection maintenance
+
+3.14 Data source
+
+   Definition:
+     A host capable of generating traffic to the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     One data source may emulate multiple users or hosts. In addition,
+     one data source may offer traffic to multiple network interfaces on
+     the DUT/SUT.
+
+     The term "data source" is deliberately independent of any number of
+     users. It is useful to think of data sources simply as traffic
+     generators, without any correlation to any given number of users.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     user
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   See also:
+     connection
+     user
+
+3.15 Demilitarized zone
+
+   Definition:
+     A network segment or segments located between protected and
+     unprotected networks.
+
+   Discussion:
+     As an extra security measure, networks may be designed such that
+     protected and unprotected segments are never directly connected.
+     Instead, firewalls (and possibly public resources such as HTTP or
+     FTP servers) reside on a so-called DMZ network.
+
+     DMZ networks are sometimes called perimeter networks.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     Homed
+
+   See also:
+     protected network
+     unprotected network
+
+3.16 Firewall
+
+   Definition:
+     A device or group of devices that enforces an access control policy
+     between networks.
+
+   Discussion:
+     While there are many different ways to accomplish it, all firewalls
+     do the same thing: control access between networks.
+
+     The most common configuration involves a firewall connecting two
+     segments (one protected and one unprotected), but this is not the
+     only possible configuration. Many firewalls support tri-homing,
+     allowing use of a DMZ network. It is possible for a firewall to
+     accommodate more than three interfaces, each attached to a
+     different network segment.
+
+     The criteria by which access are controlled are not specified here.
+     Typically this has been done using network- or transport-layer
+     criteria (such as IP subnet or TCP port number), but there is no
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     reason this must always be so. A growing number of firewalls are
+     controlling access at the application layer, using user
+     identification as the criterion. And firewalls for ATM networks may
+     control access based on data link-layer criteria.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     DMZ
+     tri-homed
+     user
+
+3.17 Goodput
+
+   Definition:
+     The number of bits per unit of time forwarded to the correct
+     destination interface of the DUT/SUT, minus any bits lost or
+     retransmitted.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Firewalls are generally insensitive to packet loss in the network.
+     As such, measurements of gross bit forwarding rates are not
+     meaningful since (in the case of proxy-based and stateful packet
+     filtering firewalls) a receiving endpoint directly attached to a
+     DUT/SUT would not receive any data dropped by the DUT/SUT.
+
+     The type of traffic lost or retransmitted is protocol-dependent.
+     TCP and ATM, for example, request different types  of
+     retransmissions.  Testers must observe retransmitted data for the
+     protocol in use, and subtract this quantity from measurements of
+     gross bit forwarding rate.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     bits per second
+
+   Issues:
+     allowed vs. rejected traffic
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     bit forwarding rate
+     rejected traffic
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3.18 Homed
+
+   Definition:
+     The number of logical interfaces a DUT/SUT contains.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Firewalls typically contain at least two logical interfaces. In
+     network topologies where a DMZ is used, the firewall usually
+     contains at least three interfaces and is said to be tri-homed.
+     Additional interfaces would make a firewall quad-homed, quint-
+     homed, and so on.
+
+     It is theoretically possible for a firewall to contain one physical
+     interface and multiple logical interfaces. This configuration is
+     discouraged for testing purposes because of the difficulty in
+     verifying that no leakage occurs between protected and unprotected
+     segments.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     tri-homed
+
+3.19 Illegal traffic
+
+   Definition:
+     Packets specified for rejection in the rule set of the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     A buggy or misconfigured firewall might forward packets even though
+     its rule set specifies that these packets be dropped. Illegal
+     traffic differs from rejected traffic in that it describes all
+     traffic specified for rejection by the rule set, while rejected
+     traffic specifies only those packets actually dropped by the
+     DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   See also:
+     accepted traffic
+     policy
+     rejected traffic
+     rule set
+
+3.20 Logging
+
+   Definition:
+     The recording of user requests made to the firewall.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Firewalls typically log all requests they handle, both allowed and
+     rejected. For many firewall designs, logging requires a significant
+     amount of processing overhead, especially when complex rule sets
+     are in use.
+
+     The type and amount of data logged varies by implementation.
+     Testers may find it desirable to log equivalent data when comparing
+     different DUT/SUTs.
+
+     Some systems allow logging to take place on systems other than the
+     DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     rule sets
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     connection
+     rejected traffic
+
+3.21 Network address translation
+
+   Definition:
+     A method of mapping one or more private, reserved IP addresses to
+     one or more public IP addresses.
+
+   Discussion:
+     In the interest of conserving the IPv4 address space, RFC 1918
+     proposed the use of certain private (reserved) blocks of IP
+     addresses. Connections to public networks are made by use of a
+     device that translates one or more RFC 1918 addresses to one or
+     more public addresses--a network address translator (NAT).
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     The use of private addressing also introduces a security benefit in
+     that RFC 1918 addresses are not visible to hosts on the public
+     Internet.
+
+     Some NAT implementations are computationally intensive, and may
+     affect bit forwarding rate.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+
+3.22  Packet filtering
+
+   Definition:
+     The process of controlling access by examining packets based on the
+     content of packet headers.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Packet-filtering devices forward or deny packets based on
+     information in each packet's header, such as IP address or TCP port
+     number. A packet-filtering firewall uses a rule set to determine
+     which traffic should be forwarded and which should be blocked.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     static vs. stateful packet filtering
+
+   See also:
+     application proxy
+     circuit proxy
+     proxy
+     rule set
+     stateful packet filtering
+
+3.23 Policy
+
+   Definition:
+     A document defining acceptable access to protected, DMZ, and
+     unprotected networks.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 17]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   Discussion:
+     Security policies generally do not spell out specific
+     configurations for firewalls; rather, they set general guidelines
+     for what is and is not acceptable network access.
+
+     The actual mechanism for controlling access is usually the rule set
+     implemented in the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     rule set
+
+3.24 Protected network
+
+   Definition:
+     A network segment or segments to which access is controlled by the
+     DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Firewalls are intended to prevent unauthorized access either to or
+     from the protected network. Depending on the configuration
+     specified by the policy and rule set, the DUT/SUT may allow hosts
+     on the protected segment to act as clients for servers on either
+     the DMZ or the unprotected network, or both.
+
+     Protected networks are often called "internal networks." That term
+     is not used here because firewalls increasingly are deployed within
+     an organization, where all segments are by definition internal.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+
+   not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     demilitarized zone (DMZ)
+     unprotected network
+     policy
+     rule set
+     unprotected network
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 18]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3.25 Proxy
+
+   Definition:
+     A request for a connection made on behalf of a host.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Proxy-based firewalls do not allow direct connections between
+     hosts.  Instead, two connections are established: one between the
+     client host and the DUT/SUT, and another between the DUT/SUT and
+     server host.
+
+     As with packet-filtering firewalls, proxy-based devices use a rule
+     set to determine which traffic should be forwarded and which should
+     be rejected.
+
+     There are two types of proxies: application proxies and circuit
+     proxies.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     application
+
+   See also:
+     application proxy
+     circuit proxy
+     packet filtering
+     stateful packet filtering
+
+3.26 Rejected traffic
+
+   Definition:
+     Packets dropped as a result of the rule set of the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     For purposes of benchmarking firewall performance, it is expected
+     that firewalls will reject all traffic not explicitly permitted in
+     the rule set. Dropped packets must not be included in calculating
+     the bit forwarding rate or maximum bit forwarding rate of the
+     DUT/SUT.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 19]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     illegal traffic
+     policy
+     rule set
+
+3.27 Rule set
+
+   Definition:
+     The collection of access control rules that determines which
+     packets the DUT/SUT will forward and which it will reject.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Rule sets control access to and from the network interfaces of the
+
+     DUT/SUT. By definition, rule sets do not apply equally to all
+     network interfaces; otherwise there would be no need for the
+     firewall. For benchmarking purposes, a specific rule set is
+     typically applied to each network interface in the DUT/SUT.
+
+     The tester must describe the complete contents of the rule set of
+     each DUT/SUT.
+
+     To ensure measurements reflect only traffic forwarded by the
+     DUT/SUT, testers are encouraged to include a rule denying all
+     access except for those packets allowed by the rule set.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     allowed traffic
+     demilitarized zone (DMZ)
+     illegal traffic
+     policy
+     protected network
+     rejected traffic
+     unprotected network
+
+3.28 Security association
+
+   Definition:
+     The set of security information relating to a given network
+     connection or set of connections.
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 20]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   Discussion:
+     This definition covers the relationship between policy and
+     connections. Security associations (SAs) are typically set up
+     during connection establishment, and they may be reiterated or
+     revoked during a connection.
+
+     For purposes of benchmarking firewall performance, measurements of
+     bit forwarding rate or UOTs per second must be taken after all
+     security associations have been established.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   See also:
+     connection
+     connection establishment
+     policy
+     rule set
+
+3.29 Stateful packet filtering
+
+   Definition:
+     The process of forwarding or rejecting traffic based on the
+     contents of a state table maintained by a firewall.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Packet filtering and proxy firewalls are essentially static, in
+     that they always forward or reject packets based on the contents of
+     the rule set.
+
+     In contrast, devices using stateful packet filtering will only
+     forward packets if they correspond with state information
+     maintained by the device about each connection. For example, a
+     stateful packet filtering device will reject a packet on port 20
+     (ftp-data) if no connection has been established over the ftp
+     control port (usually port 21).
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     applicaton proxy
+     packet filtering
+     proxy
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 21]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+3.30 Tri-homed
+
+   Definition:
+     A firewall with three network interfaces.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Tri-homed firewalls connect three network segments with different
+     network addresses. Typically, these would be protected, DMZ, and
+     unprotected segments.
+
+     A tri-homed firewall may offer some security advantages over
+     firewalls with two interfaces. An attacker on an unprotected
+     network may compromise hosts on the DMZ but still not reach any
+     hosts on the protected network.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+     Usually the differentiator between one segment and another is its
+     IP address. However, firewalls may connect different networks of
+     other types, such as ATM or Netware segments.
+
+   See also:
+     homed
+
+3.31 Unit of transfer
+
+   Definition:
+     A discrete collection of bytes comprising at least one header and
+     optional user data.
+
+   Discussion:
+     This metric is intended for use in describing steady-state
+     forwarding rate of the DUT/SUT.
+
+     The unit of transfer (UOT) definition is deliberately left open to
+     interpretation, allowing the broadest possible application.
+     Examples of UOTs include TCP segments, IP packets, Ethernet frames,
+     and ATM cells.
+
+     While the definition is deliberately broad, its interpretation must
+     not be. The tester must describe what type of UOT will be offered
+     to the DUT/SUT, and must offer these UOTs at a consistent rate.
+     Traffic measurement must begin after all connection establishment
+     routines complete and before any connection completion routine
+     begins.  Further, measurements must begin after any security
+     associations (SAs) are established and before any SA is revoked.
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 22]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+     Testers also must compare only like UOTs. It is not appropriate,
+     for example, to compare forwarding rates by offering 1,500-byte
+     Ethernet UOTs to one DUT/SUT and 53-byte ATM cells to another.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     Units of transfer
+     Units of transfer per second
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     bit forwarding rate
+     connection
+
+3.32 Unprotected network
+
+   Definition:
+     A network segment or segments to which access is not controlled by
+     the DUT/SUT.
+
+   Discussion:
+     Firewalls are deployed between protected and unprotected segments.
+     The unprotected network is not protected by the DUT/SUT.
+
+     Note that a DUT/SUT's policy may specify hosts on an unprotected
+     network. For example, a user on a protected network may be
+     permitted to access an FTP server on an unprotected network. But
+     the DUT/SUT cannot control access between hosts on the unprotected
+     network.
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     demilitarized zone (DMZ)
+     policy
+     protected network
+     rule set
+
+3.33 User
+
+   Definition:
+     A person or process requesting access to resources protected by the
+     DUT/SUT.
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 23]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   Discussion:
+     "User" is a problematic term in the context of firewall performance
+     testing, for several reasons. First, a user may in fact be a
+     process or processes requesting services through the DUT/SUT.
+     Second, different "user" requests may require radically different
+     amounts of DUT/SUT resources. Third, traffic profiles vary widely
+     from one organization to another, making it difficult to
+     characterize the load offered by a typical user.
+
+     For these reasons, testers should not attempt to measure DUT/SUT
+     performance in terms of users supported. Instead, testers should
+     describe performance in terms of maximum bit forwarding rate and
+     maximum number of connections sustained. Further, testers should
+     use the term "data source" rather than user to describe traffic
+     generator(s).
+
+   Unit of measurement:
+     not applicable
+
+   Issues:
+
+   See also:
+     data source
+
+4. Security Considerations
+
+   The primary goal of this memo is to describe terms used in
+   benchmarking firewall performance. However, readers should be aware
+   that there is some overlap between performance and security issues.
+   Specifically, the optimal configuration for firewall performance may
+   not be the most secure, and vice-versa.
+
+   Further, certain forms of attack may degrade performance. One common
+   form of denial-of-service (DoS) attack bombards a firewall with so
+   much rejected traffic that it cannot forward allowed traffic. DoS
+   attacks do not always involve heavy loads; by definition, DoS
+   describes any state in which a firewall is offered rejected traffic
+   that prohibits it from forwarding some or all allowed traffic. Even a
+   small amount of traffic may significantly degrade firewall
+   performance, or stop the firewall altogether. Further, the safeguards
+   in firewalls to guard against such attacks may have a significant
+   negative impact on performance.
+
+   Since the library of attacks is constantly expanding, no attempt is
+   made here to define specific attacks that may affect performance.
+   Nonetheless, any reasonable performance benchmark should take into
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 24]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+   consideration safeguards against such attacks. Specifically, the same
+   safeguards should be in place when comparing performance of different
+   firewall implementations.
+
+5. References
+
+   Bradner, S., Ed., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
+           Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
+
+   Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network
+           Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
+
+   Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices",
+           RFC 2285, February 1998.
+
+   Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E. Lear,
+           "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918,
+           February 1996.
+
+6. Acknowledgments
+
+   The author wishes to thank the IETF Benchmarking Working Group for
+   agreeing to review this document. Several other persons offered
+   valuable contributions and critiques during this project: Ted Doty
+   (Internet Security Systems), Kevin Dubray (Ironbridge Networks),
+   Helen Holzbaur, Dale Lancaster, Robert Mandeville, Brent Melson
+   (NSTL), Steve Platt (NSTL), Marcus Ranum (Network Flight Recorder),
+   Greg Shannon, Christoph Schuba (Sun Microsystems), Rick Siebenaler,
+   and Greg Smith (Check Point Software Technologies).
+
+7. Contact Information
+
+   David Newman
+   Data Communications magazine
+   3 Park Ave.
+   31st Floor
+   New York, NY 10016
+   USA
+
+   Phone: 212-592-8256
+   Fax:   212-592-8265
+   EMail: dnewman@data.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 25]
+
+RFC 2647            Firewall Performance Terminology         August 1999
+
+
+8.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Newman                       Informational                     [Page 26]
+