Re: [fw-wiz] Evaluating Firewall
From: Carson Gaspar (carson_at_taltos.org)
Date: 05/06/03
- Previous message: Rama Kant: "Re: [fw-wiz] Evaluating Firewall"
- In reply to: Jeffery.Gieser_at_minnesotamutual.com: "Re: [fw-wiz] Evaluating Firewall"
- Next in thread: Mikael Olsson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall performance testing (Was: Re: Evaluating Firewall)"
- Reply: Mikael Olsson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall performance testing (Was: Re: Evaluating Firewall)"
- Reply: Sean Barraclough: "[fw-wiz] Free Firewalls? Thoughts..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 18:49:07 -0400
If you are going to do performance testing as part of the evaluation, here
are some criteria to look at, based on my experience of vendor benchmark
... ummm ... "optimization". It was educational to watch the vendors squirm
in the last RFP I did, when they were forced to report numbers based on
these criteria. It's amazing how different they were than the initial
numbers we were given... ;-)
- TCP Connections / sec vs. number of rules
If any state is being kept, only the initial packet / connection traverses
the rule base. TCP has more state setup work than UDP, in many
implementations.
Make sure the matching rule is _last_. If there is rule base optimization
going on, you have to be very careful about your test conditions. So don't
let it be 10,000 UDP rules followed by a TCP rule, if it branches on
protocol.
- TCP Packets / sec vs. packet size
This will illuminate the packet rate limitations, as well as the bit rate
limitations (which are frequently 2 different limits - firewalls rarely can
keep up at their bit rate limit with 64 byte packets)
Make sure _real_ packets are being used (so TCP sequence numbers are being
incremented properly, etc.), and that they are being passed - not dropped
to to rule set or overloading. These numbers should be for 0% packet loss.
- TCP Packets / sec vs. # of established connections (same caveats as above)
Most firewalls have to do a connection lookup for established sessions.
Good ones will do so with some algorithm that is O(log n) (or so) instead
of O(n).
- Behavior on saturation
How does the firewall behave once you've gone beyond its capacity? Does it
gracefully degrade, or fall off a cliff? Do existing connections or old
connections get priority?
-- Carson Gaspar _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Rama Kant: "Re: [fw-wiz] Evaluating Firewall"
- In reply to: Jeffery.Gieser_at_minnesotamutual.com: "Re: [fw-wiz] Evaluating Firewall"
- Next in thread: Mikael Olsson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall performance testing (Was: Re: Evaluating Firewall)"
- Reply: Mikael Olsson: "Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall performance testing (Was: Re: Evaluating Firewall)"
- Reply: Sean Barraclough: "[fw-wiz] Free Firewalls? Thoughts..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|