cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Create a Post
Admin
Admin

TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Join us for an informative session with @Timothy_Hall, long-time Check Point instructor and author of Max Power: Check Point Firewall Performance Optimization for a TechTalk on getting the most performance from your Check Point Security Gateways!

 

Topics:

  • Overview of Security Performance
  • The “Super Seven” Performance Assessment Commands
  • Case Studies

 

Excerpt of session below:

(view in My Videos)

 

Slides (available to CheckMates members): Security Gateway Performance Optimization TechTalk Slides 

Full Video Video Recording (available to CheckMates members): Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall Video 

Audio Only Recording: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall by Check Point CheckMates

Q&A will be added as discussion to this post.

24 Replies

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Here are the answers to some of the chat questions.  Note that some of these answers and elements of the presentation will be slightly  different for R80.20 gateway which was released the same day as this webinar.


Can you tell me a recommended ratio of SND/ firewall cores? Eg: 12 cores and 2 core.

As mentioned in the presentation, this depends on which blades you have enabled, how much traffic is being fully-accelerated by SecureXL in the SXL path, and whether you are seeing RX-DRPs.  In general though it is common to allocate more SND/IRQ cores than are allocated by default, especially on larger firewalls.  The "Super Seven" commands covered in the presentation should help you quickly make that determination.  Table 4 on page 228 of my book also makes some initial core allocation recommendations.

Do you recommend to enable corexl with 2 cores? R77.30 with just 2 cores. One is always hitting 100% and Check Point support distributed the interfaces across the 2 cores with the sim affinity -s command but I have not seen an improvement. Should I look at Dynamic Dispatcher next?

By default with a 2-core box there will be 2 SND/IRQ instances and 2 Firewall Worker instances, so each of the two physical cores will be serving both functions.  If performance is unacceptable try disabling CoreXL from cpconfig (reboot required) which will allocate one core as a SND/IRQ and one core as a Firewall Worker.  This *may* help performance over the default setup depending on your configuration but there is no way to know in advance for sure without trying it.  It is unlikely that the additional overhead incurred by using the Dynamic Dispatcher on a 2-core box with CoreXL enabled will help, and might actually make things worse.


So when transitioning from R77.30 to R80.10, the behavior changes for firewall worker cores. Do we need to do tuning when upgrading to R80.10 to handle this? We have a 4 core box.

Generally speaking, no.  However due to the R80.10 change in process affinity mentioned in the presentation, you may notice higher CPU utilization on the Firewall Worker cores and lower CPU utilization on the SND/IRQ cores.  Whether this difference will be enough to dictate an adjustment of the CoreXL split is tough to say.


Can i make few packets pass SXL and few on F2F?

There is no direct way to force certain traffic into a particular path like PXL, other than the "Selectively disabling SecureXL for certain IP addresses " trick covered in the presentation which makes certain traffic go F2F.  The firewall will always attempt to handle traffic in the most efficient path possible.

In big boxes, we can see cores allocated to interfaces being highly used once the rest of SND cores not (even 90% of the traffic accelerated). what is the relation between Interface affinity and SND?

By default if SecureXL is enabled, Automatic Interface Affinity is active and every 60 seconds will automatically try to balance handling of SoftIRQ and accelerated traffic operations among the defined SND/IRQ cores.  But no matter how the traffic is balanced, by default only one SND/IRQ core can empty a particular physical NIC's ring buffer.  On a firewall with enough SND/IRQ cores defined, typically the busiest interfaces will end up with their own dedicated SND/IRQ core while the less-busy interfaces share one (current allocation can be viewed with sim affinity -l).  However even with a dedicated SND/IRQ core, RX-DRPs can still occur if the busy interface is utilized enough, and this is a textbook case where Multi-Queue needs to be enabled on that interface to allow the other SND/IRQ cores to help out with that particular busy interface.


Though secureXL is obviously assisting in better performance, according to Checkpoint's documentation, better performance can sometimes be observed when SecureXL is actually off. Would it be possible for us to know in which cases that would hold true?  "With CoreXL, there are cases when performance without SecureXL is better than with it, even when SecureXL does manage to accelerate part of the traffic."

Those cases are going to be pretty rare in today's world.  If 100% of the traffic is F2F due to the conditions specified on slides 43/44 and you can't do anything about it, I suppose removing the SXL path completely by disabling SecureXL would be more efficient.  However Automatic Interface Affinity would also go away resulting in the nasty effects detailed on slide 47, and the need to configure manual interface affinity.


Is it okay to disable CoreXL during business hours for troubleshooting purposes?

Disabling CoreXL requires a reboot, so I think you mean SecureXL.  As mentioned at the bottom of slide 46, the bigger the firewall the more likely there will be a noticeable performance impact when SecureXL is disabled.  If you just need to obtain a packet capture use tcpdump (which is generally immune to the state of SecureXL), or selectively disable SecureXL as mentioned on slide 48 for the address(es) you wish to capture with fw monitor.


Worth mentioning that MQ supports only 5 interfaces

Correct Multi-Queue cannot be enabled on more than five physical interfaces at a time.  Note that this limit applies to individual physical interfaces regardless of whether they are part of a bond or have VLAN-tagged subinterfaces.  Also SecureXL must be enabled to use Multi-Queue.


Does 10G interfaces require Multi-que to fully used the whole bandwith?

Maybe, see the answer to the "In big boxes..." question above.  Generally more SND/IRQ cores should be allocated first before trying Multi-Queue.


What are the things to consider if enabling dynamic dispatcher on R77.30 cluster?

Make sure you have the latest R77.30 Jumbo HFA applied first, as there were issues with the Dynamic Dispatcher (DD) in the early Jumbo HFA's for R77.30.  Treat enabling the DD as a version upgrade (i.e. do one member at a time) as I don't think they will sync properly while only one member has DD enabled but I could be wrong about that.


Can you explain fw worker process and core xl ow do they intercat those two elemtns

CoreXL is basically the splitting of SND/IRQ/SXL processing and PXL/F2F/INSPECT processing onto different physical cores.  Slide 8 lays this out in more detail.


How to see the change in performance after enabling optimization? And present in a view.

Use the cpview, top...1, and cpstat os -f multi-cpu -o 1 commands to baseline the performance of your firewall before and after tuning adjustments.

Do hyperthreading cores increase licensing costs?

No, but your Check Point appliance processor architecture must support it.  See sk93000.


If I enable dynamic dispatcher then can I go to enable hyper threading ? Is it a good idea ?

These are two completely different things.  They work fine together when both are enabled if that is what you are asking.  Enabling the Dynamic Dispatcher on R77.30 is about as close to a no-brainer as it gets.  SMT less so as covered on slide 12 of the presentation.

Is SMT still configurable on an open servers even though according to Checkpoint it is not supported?

No, when you try to enable it via cpconfig I think it says your hardware is not supported.  See sk93000.


What can be done if accepted templates are disabled by low rule no # ?

Upgrade to R80.10 gateway as the templating restrictions were relaxed significantly in that version.  The only service objects that halt accept templates on an R80.10 gateway are DCE/RPC services and certain complex services such as "mapped" services.  See sk32578 under "Acceleration of connections [templates]" for the restrictions, in R77.30 and earlier the most common service types that halt templating are DHCP, traceroute, Time/Dynamic/Domain, and DCE/RPC objects.


Cand SND use cores without addition licensing since they are essentially only routing traffic? I have seen a lot of issues where the firewalls just can accept packets fast enough that don't need the medium path.  Nic intterupts are what I am talking about mainly. Licensing shouldn't restrict accepting packets if it isn't in the medium path it seems like to me. I would think we would be able to use as many SNDs without additional licensing as we want spread over as many cores as we want as that is mainly accepting packets on interrupts. I see systems with a lot of soft IRQ which seem to be limited by licensing on cores.  Is there a way to have a 4 core license for medium path stuff but have Interrupts spread over 8 cores that are on the box just to help with interrupts?

No.  The number of licensed cores on an open hardware firewall dictates the total number of cores that can be allocated for both SND/IRQ instances and Firewall Worker instances.  I guess you might be able to manually specify interface affinity to an unlicensed core, but that packet would then have to make its way to a different core for handling by the SND.  Keeping the SoftIRQ processing and SND handling on the same physical core sounds a lot more efficient to me.  Even if you find some unsupported way to subvert the core licensing limits, after a version upgrade you may find that suddenly your workaround no longer functions or even causes new problems.


Are there certain blades that will cause all traffic to miss SXL?

Any "Deep Inspection" blades such as APCL/URLF and Threat Prevention generally cannot be handled in the SXL path.


Is this accelaration for all traffic or only for TCP

For throughput acceleration via SXL, only TCP/UDP packets can potentially be handled via SXL; everything else goes F2F including ICMP.  SecureXL accept templates can only be formed for TCP and UDP connections as well.


What if drop and overrun are the same?

For some reason certain driver/NIC combos increment the RX-DRP and RX-OVR counters displayed by netstat -ni in lock-step with each other.  Use ethtool -S (interface) to see more detailed interface counters that will allow you to distinguish NIC hardware overruns from RX buffering drops/misses.


Is there any command to check if dynamic dispatcher is enabled or not?

This was covered by Case Study 4 on slide 53 which we didn't have time to cover. 

R77.30: fw ctl multik get_mode 

R80.10: fw ctl multik dynamic_dispatching get_mode


Is really "free" command valid? shouldn't it be reather cpstat os -f memory?

The free command provides greater granularity, please see my response in this thread:

https://community.checkpoint.com/message/11906-re-cpviewmem-vs-free?commentID=11906#comment-11906 


Are there any differences in using the Super Seven on 1400 or 5200 appliances?

The Super Seven commands are valid on Check Point firewall appliance models 2200-23XXX and open hardware.  They will probably work on other models such as 600-1700 and 41000-64000 but YMMV.


Do you have any tips on gathering info during perfomrance issue while there is no one to monitor firewalls e.g during out of hours.

By default cpview keeps system performance history for the last 30 days, and it accessible by passing the -t option to cpview.


When would you increase the size of the ring buffer?   Mind you that if you upgrade from ancient versions you will have too small ringbuffers. (256 instead of 1024)

 

Only when you are out of other options should you consider changing the ring buffer size from its default value.  Situation: more SND/IRQ cores cannot be allocated due to a low number of physical cores or the utilization across all physical cores is >75%, thus indicating the firewall is undersized or in desperate need of serious tuning.  While increasing the ring buffers may reduce RX-DRPs, it can get you in further trouble by causing something nasty called Bufferbloat.


Would any core removed from the worker cores pool be automatically added to SND/IRQ?

Yes.  There is no direct way to specify the number of SND/IRQ cores you want; basically any core not designated a Firewall Worker automatically becomes a SND/IRQ core on firewalls with 4+ physical cores.


How is the swap space sized during installation? e.g. on a 23500 HPP (64 GB RAM) you get 32 GB swap space - if you use around 4 GB swap space I assume the gw is almost dead...

Will probably have to defer this one to Check Point, but ideally the firewall is not using swap space at all as shown by free -m.


When should you balance what Interfaces go to what core?  what are the pros and cons about configuring manually affinity of cores / process and/or cores / NICs ?  In general, do you feel confortable with auto affinity ? is the recalculation and redistribuition painful for the gateway ? is this better or worst than having a fixed manual distribution ?

Manual interface affinity is covered in Appendix A of my book.  In earlier releases the Automatic Interface Affinity algorithm had various problems, but far as I know they have all been rectified and it has been a very long time since I've needed to configure manual interface affinity.  Doing so is probably more likely to get you into further trouble if heavy traffic patterns through your firewall suddenly shift to new interfaces in an unexpected way.  The only exception to this is if SecureXL is disabled; in that case Automatic Interface Affinity is disabled as well and you will probably need to implement manual interface affinity.  However please see Slide 46 before going down this road.


On a 4 core appliance there is not much that can be done, true?

The default split with 4 physical cores is 1/3, if the single SND/IRQ is overloaded you can try a split of 2/2 which I've seen definitely help in certain situations.  That's about it.

Route based VPN use F2F, does ESP packets also use F2F

Route-based VPN traffic is forced to go F2F to ensure every packet visits the Gaia IP driver for routing which may have been changed by something like OSPF.  Traffic handled in PXL and SXL does not actually go through the IP driver as shown on slide 9.  ESP traffic traversing the firewall (i.e. the firewall itself is not an endpoint of the VPN tunnel) goes F2F because it is not TCP or UDP.  ESP traffic that terminates for decryption at the firewall (or is encrypted by the firewall) can potentially be handled in the SXL path subject to some restrictions.


Should you still disable securexl before running TCPDUMP?

tcpdump will *generally* provide a complete capture even when SecureXL is enabled.  Please see the exceptions to this in my reply here:

TCPDUMP and SecureXL 


If you have on R80.10 a unified policy (FW, Appctl, URLF...) is normal having low values for acceleration?

Specifically for templating (i.e. Connections/sec as shown by fwaccel stats -s) the answer is yes.  If there is any other feature enabled in the Network Policy layer (like APCL/URLF) thus making it an inline layer, the firewall's templating rate will immediately drop to zero.  Traffic subject to the Anti-bot blade can also cause a zero templating rate.  This condition has no effect whatsoever on throughput acceleration via the SXL/PXL/F2F paths.  SecureXL accept templates are no longer that important due to the new R80.10 Column-based matching feature which has substantially reduced the overhead incurred by a rulebase lookup in F2F:

Unified Policy Column-based Rule Matching 


Will sk104468 also work for ports? The table.def seems to give a hint in that direction

Never found the need to ensure certain ports go F2F, but looks like it will work.  Will have to defer this one to Check Point...

What is effect of fw monitor for traffic in SXL path?

You won't see the traffic in your fw monitor output at all, or you will only see the first packet of the connection heading to F2F for a rulebase lookup if there was no SecureXL accept template present for that connection. Other than maybe slowing it down a bit under heavy load, using fw monitor does not change whether traffic is allowed or denied by the firewall.

How good is the spike monitor script that the TAC offer

Don't think I've worked with this specific tool (or maybe it was called something else at one time), will defer to Check Point on that one.


On a 2 seat/cpu cloudguard license/installation, are you better off not enabling corexl ?

Outside my area of expertise, will defer to Check Point.


On 2380's what is the recommedned number of for SND/IRQ cores?

I assume you mean a 23800, given the large number of cores and high amount of traffic typically pushed through these boxes I usually start with a 6/18 split with SMT disabled and go from there with the Super Seven commands.  Enabling Multi-Queue and SMT might happen depending on what I find with the Super Seven commands once the box is under load.


All the advice given today, is this just as relevant for VSX

The content here will apply to VSX to some degree but due to the heavy use of user-space processes in the VSX implementation YMMV.  By far the best tuning guide for VSX is from Michael Endrizzi : VSX & CoreXL Training- You’ll love the price | DreezSecurityBlog 


For 12+ cores: cores-4 was listed as the best one in one of the Checkpoint video but sk62620 shows different numbers

The table in sk62620 is old and incorrect.  Here are the default CoreXL allocations taken from sk98737, with the maximum number of total cores corrected for a 64-bit Gaia R80.10 gateway:

Number of
CPU cores
Default number of
CoreXL IPv4
FW instances
Default number of
Secure Network Distributors
(SNDs)
11
Note: CoreXL is disabled
0
Note: CoreXL is disabled
222
431
6 - 20[Number of CPU cores] - 22
More than 20[Number of CPU cores] - 4
Note: However, no more than 40.
4


Can u put some light on dealing with https inspection?

In R77.30/R80.10 gateway all traffic subject to HTTPS Inspection will be handled in F2F with calls into process space via wstlsd/pkxld for the initial HTTPS negotiations.  Hate to pull this stunt, but pages 361-365 of my book cover in depth everything you can do to mitigate the HTTPS Inspection performance hit as much as possible.  These SKs can also help quite a bit:

sk108202: Best Practices - HTTPS Inspection

sk109772: R77.30 NGTP, NGTX and HTTPS Inspection performance and memory consumption optimization

sk65123: HTTPS Inspection FAQ


What is the default value for ring buffer on RX and TX? Is that controlled by the NIC driver/ Checkpoint

Default ring buffer size is set by the NIC manufacturer in the corresponding driver I think.  In general the default ring buffer size is 256 frames for 1Gbps interfaces and 512 for 10Gbps interfaces, but that may vary depending upon the vendor involved.  The ring buffer size can be changed from clish but that is definitely a last resort.

--
Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Thanks Timothy HallSmiley Happy

0 Kudos
Ankur_Datta
Nickel

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Thanks Tim for nice explanation.

I have one query. 

In R80.10/R80.20 if i use ordered layer for firewall policies, APP and URL policies and used inline layer in firewall policies

Will accept template connection will be 0?

Thanks

0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

No, as templates are used for opening and closing connections. Application Control, URL Filtering and Threat Prevention Blades require streaming and working through Middle Path, which includes acceleration for service packets and FW instance processing for data flow. Inline Layers or Layered policies, templates and PXL can coexist just fine.

0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

As Val mentioned SecureXL templates are only used for allowing the start of new connections in the Network policy layer (Firewall policy) based on IP addresses and ports only, if a template is present.  If the first policy layer has anything other than "Firewall" checked under Blades in the Layer Editor (regardless of ordered or inline), extra inspection is required beyond just IP addresses and port numbers.  The connection must be allowed to start based on a full rulebase lookup in F2F and data start to flow, so APCL/URLF can determine the protocol/application and then make a decision about whether to accept or drop.  As a result the SecureXL templating rate will be zero on the gateway since SecureXL cannot perform this level of inspection (at least for R80.10 and earlier, still looking at R80.20).  Other blades such as Anti-bot can also impact the SecureXL templating rate.  As mentioned in the presentation this is generally not a big deal, due to the significant rulebase lookup performance improvements incurred by Column-based matching in R80.10 gateway and later.

--
Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com
0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Hi Tim, I am pretty sure the following statement is incorrect:

>> The connection must be allowed to start based on a full rulebase lookup in F2F and data start to flow, so APCL/URLF can determine the protocol/application and then make a decision about whether to accept or drop.  As a result the SecureXL templating rate will be zero on the gateway since SecureXL cannot perform this level of inspection

 

Just think about it, in a layered policy, when APCL/URLF does not prevent FW to create SXL templates. Same here. The main rule can and will be templated, but PXL will ensure URLF/APCL functionality intact. In fact, if you run kernel debug on fw module UP, you will see that inline layer is accepted on the first packet through rulebase search function and them awaits connection details for further inspection on sub-rules before final match or drop

0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Hmm, sounds like a good discussion point with R&D next week in Israel to get the full scoop.  🙂

--
Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com
0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

I sense lack of trust here, mate 🙂 Sure, let's talk the next week. Just to be clear, SXL is heavily relying on templates in case of PXL + advanced features. We do not want to remove well accelerated security features, quite the opposite.

0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

When doing research for the second edition of my book with R80.10 and inline layers, at one point I noticed that the SecureXL Accept templating rate (Connections/sec as reported by fwaccel stats -s) on my gateway was zero.  Couldn't figure out what I had done to cause this, so I started over with a new policy package and kept an eye on the templating rate as I made changes.  Here is what I saw with R80.10:

  • Single Network Layer only has "Firewall" checked under Layer Editor...Blades: SecureXL templates formed
  • Added separate second ordered layer enabled for "Applications & URL Filtering" only: SecureXL templates formed
  • Also checked "Applications & URL Filtering" in first Network Layer: SecureXL template rate now zero, does not matter whether only simple services (port numbers) or Protocol Signature services are used in the layer, or whether any sub-rules were used
  • Anti-bot set to enforce on Protected Scope of "Any" in TP policy, SecureXL templating rate now zero regardless of above three points, probably because Anti-bot uses IP Reputation to determine whether a connection can be allowed and SecureXL does not have that capability, so therefore no connections can be permitted by templates

Note for anyone else reading this: the above has absolutely nothing to do with SecureXL throughput acceleration and what path traffic takes (SXL, PXL, or F2F).

--
Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com
0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Uh, that is a different story, mate 🙂 Nothing to do with sub-layers. Yes, obviously, if you use APCL in the main rule, it cannot be templated. No objections here 🙂 I was referring to your 1st and 2 steps. Generally, sub-rules do not disable templates, but the combination of features can.

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

One correction: In the audio portion I stated that Priority Queues are enabled by default in R80.10 which is not completely correct in all situations, and this issue exists in my book as well which will be clarified in the upcoming R80.20 addendum.  Some context:

When the Dynamic Dispatcher (DD) was first introduced in R77.30 vanilla, its function was inseparable from Priority Queues (PQ).  Enabling the DD (using command fw ctl multik set_mode 9) would automatically enable PQ; there was no way to control the two features separately.  However in Take 138 and later of the Jumbo HFA for R77.30, a new mode 4 was added which would only turn on the DD (but not enable PQ), while mode 9 would still enable both the DD and PQ.  However in the notes of many Check Point administrators (including mine) they still had the fw ctl multik set_mode 9 command in their notes to always execute on a new R77.30 firewall.

If Mode 9 is set on an R77.30 firewall, when upgraded to R80.10 both the DD and PQ will be enabled.  If Mode 4 is set on an R77.30 firewall, when upgraded to R80.10 only the DD will be enabled.  If Mode 0 (no DD/PQ) is set on an R77.30 firewall, when upgraded to R80.10 the DD will be enabled and PQ will be disabled.  On a newly-loaded R80.10 firewall, DD will be enabled and PQ will be disabled. 

In R80.10 the commands for DD and PQ were also split apart into fw ctl multik dynamic_dispatching and fw ctl multik prioq to make things a bit more clear, and help avoid mistakes like the one I made.  🙂

--
Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Great video.

Timothy Hall, regarding HTTPS Inspection, you said that it is always handled in F2F however the SecureXL ATRG says it is handled in the medium path (PXL):

Is the ATRG not up to date?

0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

That is not correct for R80.10 and earlier, perhaps the traffic is kicked up from SecureXL to the Medium Path (PXL) initially, but if HTTPS Inspection encrypt/decrypt is required that has to happen in F2F.  Once the HTTPS traffic is decrypted perhaps it goes back down to PXL for inspection?  I don't think that is possible though.

--
Second Edition of my "Max Power" Firewall Book
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com
0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

It is correct, actually. PXL means TCP handshake is accelerated, while the data goes F2F for inspection. This is still valid for HTTPS inspection, where decryption is done on FWK while connection handling can still be accelerated.

Per packet it is wither SXL or FWK, so the whole confusion is caused by unclear consideration.

 If we consider HTTPS inspection per packet, where only encrypted packets are of interest, Timothy Hall‌'s statement is correct. HTTPS encrypted packets go to FW instances.

If we consider HTTPS inspection per connection, it is using PXL. There is no contradiction

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Thanks Timothy Hall

0 Kudos
Highlighted

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

SecureXL runes on same Core where the SDN is running/Available ?? 

0 Kudos
Admin
Admin

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

I assume you mean SND (not SDN) and fw_worker (the userspace part of SecureXL).

The only time fw_worker and SND run on the same cores is when you only have two processor cores.

The default in this case is two fw_worker and two SND processes.

You can see this in Section 2.2 of the following SK: Best Practices - Security Gateway Performance 

Otherwise, the SND and fw_worker always run on separate cores. 

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

OK thanks for quick response .I mean securexl runs on SND core or fw_worker core. If firewall running with 4 or more core

0 Kudos
Admin
Admin

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

SND and fw_worker are both participants in SecureXL performing different functions.

The SK I pointed to in my previous comment explains.

0 Kudos

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

I think Dameon Welch-Abernathy‌'s answer is too vague.

If the question is about which core is doing acceleration bypass inspection on 4 core machine, the answer is, it is the one which is designated to be an SND core. With more cores and multiple SNDs, it might be a bit more complex, but even there SND cores will be doing acceleration.

What Dameon is trying to say (as far as I understand) is that SecureXL and CoreXL functions are fused together and cannot be regarded separately in 99% of the cases, hence the reference to the big picture.

I hope it is clear enough.

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Thanks Valeri Loukine and Dameon Welch-Abernathy it clear Now. thanks for explanations!!! 

Admin
Admin

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

That's exactly what I'm saying: CoreXL and SecureXL are "tied at the hip" Smiley Happy

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Just to follow up on this TechTalk discussion, R80.10 ongoing Jumbo Take 177 has introduced the ability to force certain trusted traffic to be handled by SecureXL no matter what and completely skip the Medium and Firewall Paths.  This capability has been around for awhile on the 41k-64k scalable platforms (sk113080: 60000 / 40000 Appliances - SecureXL Fast Accelerator (sim fastaccel)) and has now been ported into the main train of code.  The command is sim fastaccel and you can read more about here:

sk139772: SecureXL Fast Accelerator (sim fastaccel) for Non Scalable Platforms

This new feature should still be present whenever the next GA edition of the R80.10 jumbo HFA is released.  If you are not willing to wait you can either load R80.10 ongoing jumbo take 177 and later, or it appears that this feature may be available as a single hotfix for certain R80.10 Jumbo HFA takes, please contact TAC to find out if this is the case.

The big application I can see for this is allowing high-speed LAN-to-LAN traffic (such as backups between a DMZ and the internal network) be able to take the SXL path, regardless of any other inspection that is called for in your configuration which would normally invoke the extra overhead of PXL or F2F.  Because this traffic will be treated as trusted, it is very important to perform a thorough risk analysis prior to configuring this feature.

Note: This capability does not appear to be present in the R80.20 gateway code yet, at least that I can find.

--

CheckMates Break Out Sessions Speaker

CPX 2019 Las Vegas & Vienna - Tuesday@13:30

"IPS Immersion Training" Self-paced Video Class
Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

Re: TechTalk: Security Gateway Performance Optimization with Tim Hall

Wow nice one. Installing take 117 to test this in lad. Thanks Tim

0 Kudos