This is a really cool and easy to use feature of the FortiGate firewall: the traffic shaper. Once an application category uses too much traffic, the bandwidth consumption can be decreased with it. Just about three clicks:
Once more some throughput tests, this time the Palo Alto Networks firewalls site-to-site IPsec VPN. Similar to my VPN speedtests for the FortiGate firewall, I set up a small lab with two PA-200 firewalls and tested the bandwidth of different IPsec phase 2 algorithms. Compared to the official data sheet information from Palo Alto that state an IPsec VPN throughput of 50 Mbps, the results are really astonishing.
After I have done some speedtests on the FortiGate firewall I was interested in doing the same tests on a Palo Alto. That is: What are the throughput differences of IPv4 vs. IPv6, measured with and without security profiles, i.e., with and without threat prevention.
It turned out that the throughput is much higher than the official information from Palo Alto. Furthermore, I was not able to test the threat prevention at all, because non of my traffic (Iperf and mere HTTP) went through the antivirus engines. I have to test this again. However, here are the measured values so far:
Just a short post this time, but an interesting fact concerning different Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their routing to/from other countries. I have a customer in Germany that has a remote office in France, connected via a site-to-site VPN. Around April last year the french office decided to change the ISP to a cheaper competitor that offers the same speed/bandwidth and therefore has no disadvantages… Well, I disagree.
I was interested in the performance of my FortiGate firewall when comparing IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. Therefore I built a small lab consisting a FortiWiFi 90D firewall and two Linux clients running Iperf. I tested the network throughput for both Internet Protocols in both directions within three scenarios: 1) both clients plugged into the same “hardware switch” on the FortiGate, 2) different subnets with an “allow any any” policy without any further security profiles, and finally, 3) activating antivirus, application control, IPS, and SSL inspection.
Ähnlich zum dem Site-to-Site VPN Throughput Test der FortiGate Firewalls wollte ich mal den FRITZ!Boxen auf den Zahn fühlen und herausfinden, in wie fern sich der VPN-Durchsatz bei den Modellen unterscheidet, bzw. welche Rolle die ausgewählten Verschlüsselungsverfahren spielen. Getestet habe ich eine (etwas ältere) FRITZ!Box 7270v3 mit FRITZ!OS 06.06 sowie eine (neuere, obgleich nicht Topmodell) FRITZ!Box 7430 in Version 06.30. Als VPN-Endpunkt auf der Gegenseite habe ich eine FortiGate Firewall genommen. Getestet wurde das reine Routing/NATting sowie verschiedene Phase 2 Proposals mit dem Netzwerk Tool Iperf.
Triggered by a customer who had problems getting enough speed through an IPsec site-to-site VPN tunnel between FortiGate firewalls I decided to test different encryption/hashing algorithms to verify the network throughput. I used two FortiWiFi 90D firewalls that have an official IPsec VPN throughput of 1 Gbps. Using Iperf I measured the transfer rates with no VPN tunnel as well as with different IPsec proposals.
I first ran into really slow performances which were related to the default “Software Switch” on the FortiGate. After deleting this type of logical switch, the VPN throughput was almost as expected.
A common mistake when analyzing network speed/bandwidth between different applications and servers is to fully rely on the mere size of the files being transferred. In fact, one big file will transfer much faster than thousands of small files that have the same accumulated size. This depends on the overhead of reading/writing these files, building TCP/IP sessions, scanning them for viruses, etc. Furthermore, it is application dependent.
I built a small lab with an FTP server, switch, firewall, and an FTP client in which I played a bit with different file sizes. In this blog post I am showing the measured transfer times and some Wireshark graphs.