Pagina Principal ARTIGOS Network SRX Chassis Cluster with Redundant LACP LAG trunk

IPSec Bandwidth Overhead Using AES

Someone asked so lets walk through the overhead introduced when using IPSec with AES; it’s higher than you might think and I haven’t even factored in ISAKMP.

Encryption really isn’t ‘my bag’ so if anything is wrong, do let me know; hopefully public scrutiny will mean I can truly rely on these figures.

Take a look at my TCP Over IP Bandwidth Overhead article if you’d like to understand the further overheads introduced by TCP/IP itself, plus those of Ethernet.

As before, skip to the end for the summary if you really can’t face the math.

appointment-soonAssumptions

The following assumptions have been made when formulating these calculations;

  • No retries, packet losses or other events occur
  • One way, one to one host communication data and overhead
  • TCP & IP packet headers of 40Bytes (no TCP options)
  • Use of a full-duplex communications medium, i.e. the full bandwidth is available both upstream and downstream, at the same time
  • Where division of the data into the maximum packet size results in a fraction, a packet for that remaining data must still be transmitted so we always round-up when calculating the number of packets

Units of Measurement

The abbreviations used with the data/traffic values in this article are metric prefixes (aka SI prefixes) indicating decimal multiplication (rather than binary prefixes where 1k = 1024), as follows;

  • 1 Byte = 8 bits
  • 1 kB = 1,000 Bytes (8,000 bits)
  • 1 MB = 1,000,000 Bytes (8,000,000 bits)

A few things to remember;

  • Serial line speeds are typically quotes using metric prefixes, so a 2Mb E1 is actually 2.048Mb using SI prefixes
  • File sizes are normally quotes in Bytes
  • Link speeds are quoted in bits per second, not Bytes, thus (ignoring all overheads) it’ll take 8s to move 100MB (MegaByte) over a 100Mb (MegaBit) per second Fast Ethernet link
  • Linux commands display file size information in Bytes using SI prefixes. However, using  a –human-readable or -h switch normally results in output using metric prefixes which is rather confusing
  • Windows displays file sizes using metric prefixes.  To make accurate calculations, view the file properties or use a command prompt to discover the file size in bytes and apply the metric prefix
  • Most other storage systems use binary prefixes
  • But hard drive manufacturers typically use SI prefixes which means they appear smaller than specified when capacity is displayed using binary prefixes

Other Overheads

TCP/IP handshake overheads have been ignored as these are negligible.

ISAKMP overheads have been ignored.

Encryption Padding

AES Only operates using a specific size of data called block size. The AES block size is 128 bits or 16 Bytes. If the body of a packet is smaller than or not divisible by this 16 Byte block size it is ‘padded’ so it can be operated on. For instance;

  • A 1 Byte packet body will have 15 Bytes of padding added, resulting in a 16 Byte body.
  • A 500 Byte packet body will have 12 Bytes of padding added, resulting in a 512 Byte body.
  • A 1400 Byte packet body will have 8 Bytes of padding added, resulting in a 1408 Byte body.

Reference Note: AES block size – RFC3602, Section 2.4

Hash/HMAC Padding & Additions

MD5 and SHA-1 HMAC processing also operates using a specific block size; 512 bits or 64 Bytes. Every packet (aka message) also has a 1 bit padding identifier added (even if there is no padding) and a 64 bit or 8 Byte message length added. If the body of a packet, with the extra 65 bits added, is smaller than or not divisible by the 64 Byte block size it is ‘padded’ so it can be operated on. For instance;

  • An 8 Byte packet body will have 48 Bytes of padding added, (including the 1 bit padding identifier,) resulting in a 56 Byte body prior to the 8 Byte message length information being added. Total body size will be 64 Bytes.
  • A 500 Byte packet body will have 4 Bytes of padding added, (including the 1 bit padding identifier,) resulting in a 504 Byte body prior to the 8 Byte message length information being added. Total body size will be 512 Bytes.
  • A 1399 Byte, 7 bit packet body will have no padding added except the the 1 bit padding identifier, resulting in a 1400 Byte body prior to the 8 Byte message length information being added. Total body size will be 1408 Bytes.

IP Sec Headers & Trailers

AH and ESP both add headers to the TCP/IP packet itself, ESP also adds an Initialisation Vector (IV) and a trailer. The size of this additional data depends on the IPsec protocol and mode used, as follows;

  • Tunnel Mode: 20 Byte header regardless of protocol used
  • Transport Mode: No additional data, headers or trailers
  • AH: 24 Byte header
  • ESP: 40 Bytes (8 Byte header (SPI and Sequence Number,) 16 Byte IV and 16 Byte trailer)

Reference Note: The Initialisation Vector (IV) is always be the same as the encryption block size – RFC3602, Section 2.1

Overhead Calculations

Now we understand all the possible additions to the packet body and the TCP/IP packet itself, we’ll calculate the overall affect or overhead when encrypting packets with AES and sending them across an IPsec secured network link. We’ll assume SHA-1 hashing, ESP tunnel mode is used and the ESP IV is 16 Bytes.

Transmitting 1 Byte of Data

This might seem unlikely but programs such as Telnet and SSH transmit a packet for every character sent or received during a session.

  • Add 15 Bytes for AES padding to reach the 16 Byte AES block size (1 16 Byte block)
  • Add 1 bit for the padding identifier
  • Add 8 Bytes for the SHA-1 message length information
  • Add 39 Bytes, 7 bits padding to reach the 64 Byte SHA-1 block size (1 64 Byte block)
  • Add 20 Bytes for the ESP tunnel mode header
  • Add 8 Bytes for the ESP header
  • Add 16 Bytes for the ESP IV
  • Add 16 Byes for the ESP trailer
  • Total packet size (minus TCP/IP headers) is now: 124 Bytes - an increase of 12,300%

Transmitting 1000 Bytes of Data

  • Add 8 Bytes for AES padding to reach the 16 Byte AES block size (63 16 Byte blocks)
  • Add 1 bit for the padding identifier
  • Add 8 Bytes for the SHA-1 message length information
  • Add 7 Bytes, 7 bits padding to reach the 64 Byte SHA-1 block size (16 64 Byte blocks)
  • Add 20 Bytes for the ESP tunnel mode header
  • Add 8 Bytes for the ESP header
  • Add 16 Bytes for the ESP IV
  • Add 16 Byes for the ESP trailer
  • Total packet size (minus TCP/IP headers) is now: 1084 Bytes - an increase of 8.4%

Transmitting 1460 Bytes of Data

  • Add 12 Bytes for AES padding to reach the 16 Byte AES block size (92 16 Byte blocks)
  • Add 1 bit for the padding identifier
  • Add 8 Bytes for the SHA-1 message length information
  • Add 53 Bytes, 7 bits padding to reach the 64 Byte SHA-1 block size (24 64 Byte blocks)
  • Add 20 Bytes for the ESP tunnel mode header
  • Add 8 Bytes for the ESP header
  • Add 16 Bytes for the ESP IV
  • Add 16 Byes for the ESP trailer
  • Total packet size (minus TCP/IP headers) is now: 1576 Bytes - an increase of 7.95%

Summary

So, as demonstrated, for data payloads in excess of the common TCP payload maximum segment size (the MSS) of 1460 Bytes, the IPSec bandwidth overhead using AES is approximately 7.95%. This equates to an ‘efficiency’ of 92.64% (1460/1576) – in other words, that’s how much bandwidth is left for actual data if you’re putting as much data in each packet as possible. Note however that as this packet size is larger than the typical IP (and Ethernet) MTU, it’s very unlikely that you’ll achieve this level of efficiency. As noted in the comments, the ideal MSS appears to be 1392 when using ESP.

Keep in mind that for very small data payloads (common with applications such as Telnet, TN3270 mainframe emulation and SSH) the IPSec bandwidth overhead can as high as 12,300%.

If you add TCP/IP and Ethernet (and VLAN tagging) into the mix (see the calculations from Wikipedia here) then the throughput of a 100Mb link is 100 x 0.92.64 (IPSec+AES efficiency) x 0.9733 (TCP/IP efficiency) x 0.9728 (Ethernet (with tagging) efficiency) which equals 87.71Mbps, a combined efficiency of 87.71%. assuming ideal conditions.

Thanks To

This article would not of been possible without the analysis and information provided by Ray Savarda and Matt Karash in this article: http://www.tisc-insight.com/newsletters/39.html.

Chris Bull for correcting me over the ESP IV size back in 2010.

Next

My head hurts but I’m having quite a bit of fun removing the rose coloured spectacles and taking away everyone’s bandwidth.  I’ve already ‘stolen’ 1.2Gb+ of every 10Gb link out there and I really want more. So, next up I’ll calculate the bandwidth overhead of SSL/TLS  and see if we can get down to less than 80% efficiency. Think this sounds fanciful? What’s so odd about using a VPN with HTTPS through a trunked firewall interface?

 

Fonte: http://packetpushers.net/ipsec-bandwidth-overhead-using-aes/

.