RE: [fw-wiz] tests about latency

From: Paul Robertson (proberts_at_patriot.net)
Date: 09/12/03

  • Next message: David Vernon: "[fw-wiz] Large number of packets on TCP/12159"
    To: Neale Banks <neale@lowendale.com.au>
    Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:12:05 -0400 (EDT)
    
    

    On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Neale Banks wrote:

    > Ob FW: Whilst obviously anything that's not simply routed (e.g. proxied
    > protocols) would be a completely different kettle of fish, to what extent
    > could one then reasonably generalise the results obtained from ping tests
    > (i.e. ICMP packets) to other protocols?

    Not well at all, ICMP handling is generally a special case for most
    stacks/devices. Also, some devices prioritize different protocols, and
    ICMP datagrams tend to be self-contained, not requiring things like
    sequence number checking.

    Finally, the size of the ICMP datagram can make a huge difference even on
    the same platform, as can the type- how the stack is written may affect
    which ICMP type codes get handled more quickly, for instance.

    I wouldn't base any conclusions of overall performance, let alone
    per-protocol performance on just an ICMP test.

    Performance testing is difficult to get right, and the numbers change for
    most devices with minor changes to the packets you're generating. Sizes,
    fragments, windows for TCP, and the like all make different devices do
    different things, _especially_ if you're trying to make a security
    decision based upon the packets. For instance, how many out of sequence
    packets will a device buffer before making the other end retransmit
    packets? Are those buffers packet-size specific? If we fill up a
    different sized buffer, will it affect overall performance for the other
    buffers, and how?

    The best you can hope to do is get a representative sample of traffic out
    of wherever you want to put the device, then recreate a similar mix and
    test with each piece. Everything else is a guess, and probably a poorly
    educated one unless you completely understand the characteristics of the
    hardware, stack and testing going on.

    Paul
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
    proberts@patriot.net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
    probertson@trusecure.com Director of Risk Assessment TruSecure Corporation

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: David Vernon: "[fw-wiz] Large number of packets on TCP/12159"

    Relevant Pages

    • TCP/IP Applications FAQ
      ... waiting for an ICMP Echo Reply from the host. ... Each trio of packets 'expire' at a succeeding ... Of the rexec protocol. ...
      (comp.unix.questions)
    • TCP/IP Applications FAQ
      ... waiting for an ICMP Echo Reply from the host. ... Each trio of packets 'expire' at a succeeding ... Of the rexec protocol. ...
      (comp.unix.questions)
    • TCP/IP Applications FAQ
      ... waiting for an ICMP Echo Reply from the host. ... Each trio of packets 'expire' at a succeeding ... Of the rexec protocol. ...
      (comp.unix.questions)
    • TCP/IP Applications FAQ
      ... waiting for an ICMP Echo Reply from the host. ... Each trio of packets 'expire' at a succeeding ... Of the rexec protocol. ...
      (comp.unix.questions)
    • TCP/IP Applications FAQ
      ... waiting for an ICMP Echo Reply from the host. ... Each trio of packets 'expire' at a succeeding ... Of the rexec protocol. ...
      (comp.unix.questions)