This paper presents a six-step methodology for conducting competitive product evaluations that provide advance insight into the performance, security, and stability of devices within production network and data center environments.

1. A Six-Step Plan for Competitive Device
Evaluations
How to Evaluate and Select the Best Content-Aware Network or Security Devices for Enterprise,
Federal, and Carrier Infrastructures
BreakingPoint Enterprise IT Resiliency Series
www.breakingpoint.com
1
© 2005 – 2011. BreakingPoint Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. The BreakingPoint logo is a trademark of BreakingPoint Systems, Inc.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

2. Executive Summary
IT organizations are upgrading to faster and more intelligent content-aware IT infrastructures to support customers, users,
and business operations as a whole. The sophisticated high-performance network and security devices within these
infrastructures require a more comprehensive approach to pre-deployment testing than traditional testing tools can provide.
This paper presents a six-step methodology for conducting competitive product evaluations that provide advance insight
into the performance, security, and stability of devices within production network and data center environments. By
following the methodology presented in this paper, organizations will:
• Select the right firewall, IPS, UTM, load balancer, virtualized server, or other device to meet business and IT objectives.
• Understand device capabilities to improve infrastructure planning and resiliency.
• Save up to 50 percent on IT investments.
• Eliminate hundreds of man-hours in post-purchase configuration, troubleshooting, and tuning.
2

3. Introduction
IT organizations embarking upon a network, security, Recent high-profile performance and security failures are
or data center infrastructure upgrade need new bringing renewed focus to the importance of sufficient
methodologies and tools for testing and validating the testing to ensure content-aware network devices can perform
performance, security, and stability of today’s content- under real-world and peak conditions...Network equipment
aware devices. To make purchase decisions about firewalls, providers, service providers, and other organizations require
intrusion prevention systems (IPS), servers, load balancers, testing solutions capable of rigorously testing, simulating, and
and so on, CIOs, CISOs, and other IT leaders need better emulating realistic application workloads and security attacks
information than traditional testing tools can provide. at line speed.
Why? Because today’s content-aware and application-aware Equally important, these tools must be able to keep pace with
devices employ deep packet inspection (DPI) capabilities to emerging and more innovative products as well as thoroughly
examine traffic in ways that legacy testing approaches were
vet complex content-aware/DPI-capable functionality by
never designed to validate. Such devices—and the complex
emulating a myriad of application protocols and other types
traffic they handle—demand a new and deeper approach to
of content at ever-increasing speeds to ensure delivery of an
comparative device testing that uses real application, attack,
outstanding quality of experience (QoE) for the customer
and malformed traffic at ever-increasing speeds. Without
and/or subscriber.
this improved approach, content-aware equipment cannot
be stressed thoroughly enough to determine the true limits
of its capabilities. IDC Report: “The Inevitable Failure of Content-Aware/DPI
Network Devices — and How to Mitigate the Risk”
This paper explains the six steps that organizations must
follow to validate DPI-enabled equipment and make fully
informed purchase decisions: The providers of complex network security devices frequently
1. Create and prioritize specifications for products to be make marketing claims that are unsupported by hard
evaluated.
evidence and, in any case, do not reflect the real-world
2. Develop a testing plan around repeatable, quantitative
requirements of specific enterprises. The only solution for
principles.
prospective buyers is to define their own enterprise-specific
3. Use standardized scores to separate pretenders from
business, security, and operational requirements, and test
contenders.
devices rigorously against those requirements...
4. Create individual test scenarios that mirror the
production environment and are repeatable yet random.
5. Execute a layered testing progression that includes load, Security professionals must be prepared to test in-line
application traffic, security attacks, and other stress security products to confirm their security effectiveness and
vectors. performance capabilities under real-world conditions.
6. Lay the groundwork for successful deployment and
maintenance. Gartner Report: “Guidelines for CISOs: A 10-Step Program for
Selecting the Right Network Security Devices” (February 2011)
Why Marketing Claims Are Not Sufficient
Vendor performance claims are based on generic conditions
within a vendor’s lab, and will never be sufficient for making Test lab reports are equally inadequate. These labs follow
sound decisions. They can never accurately portray the a “vacuum” or “clean room” approach, in which device
resiliency—the performance, security, and stability—of testing is done in isolation, without regard to the unique
devices as they handle the unique mix of traffic within a environments of customers. Also, test labs are often
customer’s network. funded by device manufacturers, which invariably calls into
question the objectivity of test results.
3

4. Companies need an approach that allows them to impose Six Steps to the Perfect Competitive Device
their own conditions during pre-purchase evaluations—also Evaluation
known as “bakeoffs”—so that they can rigorously validate 1. reate and Prioritize Specifications for Products to Be
C
device capabilities under real-world scenarios at line rate. Evaluated
Only by conducting this type of bakeoff will IT buyers As with any project, it is wise to “begin with the end in
acquire the actionable answers needed to make informed mind” when planning a device bakeoff. Before considering
purchase decisions and eliminate time-consuming post- any piece of equipment, IT decision makers should clearly
deployment troubleshooting. define and prioritize the organization’s needs for current and
future infrastructure build-out. Otherwise, it is too easy to
Benefits of a Successful Device Evaluation dive into questions of speeds and feeds without taking into
IT professionals responsible for choosing content- or account broader objectives. A good way to start is by asking
application-aware network and security equipment should fundamental questions such as:
follow the steps outlined here to ensure that devices are • How should the infrastructure support key business
fully evaluated before purchase and deployment. Using the objectives? For example, what are the transaction
findings of pre-purchase and pre-deployment testing, they latency requirements?
can refine their understanding of the unique real-world • How important is the security of transactions in
conditions affecting their networks. By following the six comparison to their speed?
steps for device bakeoffs explained in this paper, purchasers • Which services are most sensitive, requiring the
will ensure that they: highest levels of security?
• Select the right products to meet their business • Is application inspection necessary or not?
objectives. Doing this requires a clear knowledge
of device resiliency when handling a mix of real The answers to questions like these may not be as obvious
application traffic, security attacks, and malformed as they initially appear. Obvious or not, they help establish
traffic under heavy load. the priorities for the infrastructure, which are then used to
• Understand device capabilities to improve generate specific evaluation criteria for selecting the right
infrastructure planning and resiliency. The product.
information gained during the bakeoff process allows
IT planners to rightsize network and data center Making this selection is about more than finding the right
infrastructures to meet business needs for resiliency make and model of device; it also means choosing the right
while controlling costs. amount of equipment to rightsize the infrastructure while
• Save up to 50 percent on IT investments. Customers meeting business needs. To enable rightsizing, it is important
that perform independent testing are able to rightsize
infrastructures and pay for only the performance they
actually get from each device. As this paper will show, Testing is not necessarily about proving that the most-capable,
buyers are negotiating better vendor discounts when most-expensive product is the best choice. A well-designed
armed with detailed information about the capabilities testing plan may actually show that a lower level of performance
of devices under their own network conditions. is acceptable at certain points on the network, and this can
• Eliminate hundreds of man-hours in post-purchase reduce purchase and deployment costs. IT organizations that
configuration and tuning. Performing thorough do not perform relevant tests in-house may introduce serious
pre-purchase validation gives purchasers advance security and performance issues to their networks by purchasing
knowledge of device capabilities and prevents weeks underspecified devices, or may overspend significantly on higher
of delays caused by post-deployment troubleshooting
levels of performance and coverage that are not required.
and vendor finger-pointing. This insight also helps IT
organizations configure devices appropriately to avoid
Gartner Report: “Protecting the Enterprise: Verifying the
surprises and disruptions.
Performance of Complex Network Security Products”
(January 2011)
4

5. to suspend assumptions about how many devices will be in Step 1 will translate into the specific parameters
required, because the approach to bakeoffs described here evaluated during the testing itself.
often leads to surprising insights that overturn assumptions.
In one recent example, a large financial services organization Elements to Include in the Plan:
had planned to purchase two sets of redundant firewalls • Controlled Variables — Throughout the planning
for a particular installation. But the company was working and execution stages, the bakeoff must rigorously
from a false assumption about how many devices it would control variables. The goal should always be to isolate
actually need. A scientific bakeoff enabled the firewalls device capabilities and problem areas, which—as in
to be validated and properly tuned using the firm’s actual any scientific investigation—requires repeating tests
network conditions instead of canned traffic or estimates. exactly and changing only one input at a time.
This process revealed that the firewalls performed better • Accurate Baselines — As a further control, each test
than expected. The company needed to buy only one set of process should include an initial run through a simple
redundant devices, not two, which cut its firewall bill in half. piece of cable to establish what the traffic looks
like without intermediation by any device. Doing
To facilitate the capture and rigorous analysis of so creates a valid basis for comparison against the
performance results, organizations may want to build out subsequent run of the same traffic through the DUT.
a Planning Matrix. In a spreadsheet, each important feature • Uniform Configurations — Consistent collection
of devices to be evaluated is given its own row, with the of data requires that devices be set up uniformly
rows arranged in priority order. Weighted values are then throughout the bakeoff. This means that each vendor
assigned to each row. Each device being considered is given should configure its device to match standard
its own column, and the columns are filled in as results are settings established by the purchaser. It also means
gathered from the testing processes described below. When that settings for the testing equipment should be
the matrix is fully populated with performance details, it maintained across all DUTs.
should provide objective clarity about how well each device • Escalating Complexity — To achieve a comprehensive
performed across all criteria. understanding of device capabilities, bakeoff testing
should proceed by stages, evolving in complexity until
Metric Weight Device A Device B Device C it fully reflects the purchaser’s unique mix of traffic. The
Security Coverage
Attacks Blocked (%) 35% 65 72 73
first of these stages, explained in Step 3 below, uses
Performance standards-based application, attack, and malformed
Flows per Second 30% 111,374 97,764 119,384 traffic to evaluate a longer list of devices and quickly
Max Concurrent Flows 20% 2,000,000 2,350,000 1,850,000
eliminate obviously unsuitable choices. The second
Throughput (Mbps) 15% 11,542 13,127 9,842
stage, addressed in Steps 4 and 5, uses custom traffic
mixes and progressive rounds of testing to precisely
mirror the actual conditions that shortlisted devices
2. ethink Testing around Repeatable, Quantitative
R will face once they are deployed in the purchaser’s
Principles infrastructure.
Purchasers should use the specifications generated in • recision Tools — Bakeoffs must use testing tools
P
Step 1 to create a plan for stressing each device under that create precise real-world network conditions
test (DUT) with real-world application, attack, and again and again and enable variables to be changed
malformed traffic under load. Doing so is not as simple as one at a time. These tools must also capture exact
taking older, ad hoc approaches to testing and injecting measurements of device behavior to enable accurate
authentic traffic. The entire plan must embrace a scientific comparisons among devices.
methodology to accurately validate the capabilities of
DPI-enabled devices, which means it must use repeatable In the past, network and security professionals have lacked
experiments that yield clear, quantitative results. Only this the precision tools necessary to enforce truly consistent,
approach ensures that the evaluation criteria established scientific standards across their testing processes. That
5

6. has hampered their ability to make decisions based from the scores, they can then choose the three or four
on hard quantitative data and forced them to make most suitable devices for deep, customized testing. Using
estimates about device resiliency based on whatever standardized scores at this stage saves time and money by
performance numbers they could gather. Today, however, quickly establishing which devices are the most likely to fulfill
superior tools create authentic application traffic and the business needs set out earlier in the process. Formulation
capture precise measurements of its effects, even for the of the custom tests for shortlisted devices is covered in Step
complex interactions common in 10GigE content-aware 4, while execution of them is addressed in Step 5.
environments. Companies that lack such tools can employ
them for the duration of a bakeoff by contracting with a 4. reate Individual Test Scenarios That Mirror the
C
third party for on-demand device evaluation services. Production Environment and Are Repeatable yet
Random
3. se Standardized Scores to Separate Pretenders from
U With this step, the bakeoff process moves into
Contenders comprehensive testing to fully validate the capabilities
Purchasers can turn a long list of candidate devices into a of DPI-enabled devices. Authentic validation requires an
short list without performing comprehensive validation on accurate understanding of the application, network, and
each product by using standardized scoring methods. These security landscape in which devices will be operating.
scores can quickly eliminate from consideration equipment Therefore, purchasers should review their own traffic
that clearly does not meet an organization’s needs. mix and the mixes of service providers before designing
individual tests; this will ensure that their testing equipment
For example, BreakingPoint has developed a Resiliency Score reflects the latest versions and types of application traffic
that is calculated using industry standards from organizations that traverse their network. They should also consult
such as US–CERT, IEEE, and the IETF, as well as standard sets of independent security research as well as the findings of their
security strikes and real-world traffic mixes from the world’s own in-house network or security operations centers for the
largest service providers. This scientific, repeatable process latest information on security attacks, including malware
is designed to enable meaningful comparisons without and evasions. Companies that need help in collecting this
partiality to any vendor. It uses a battery of simulations to information can turn to on-demand services that specialize
evaluate a DUT’s capabilities in terms of throughput, sessions, in network security.
robustness in the face of corrupted traffic, and security. The
resulting score is presented as a numeric grade from 1 to 100. It is important to note that packet captures (PCAPs) of
Devices may receive no score if they fail to pass traffic at any network traffic are inadequate for this survey of the
point or degrade to an unacceptable performance level. The landscape, since they attempt to substitute a tiny slice
Resiliency Score takes the guesswork and subjectivity out of of real traffic for a steady flow of it. Modern application-
validation and allows administrators to quickly understand aware devices typically come equipped with huge cache
the degree to which system security will be impacted under memory, allowing them to ignore repetitive traffic such
load, attack, and real-world application traffic. as that found in PCAPs. Simplistic traffic such as plain UDP
or HTTP packets, IMIX, or a blend of a few homogenous
The product certification firm Underwriters Laboratories has protocols is likewise inadequate, because it does not reflect
recently announced a similar standard, UL 2825, that uses a the complexities under which DUTs will operate once they
scientific evaluation system to validate network and security are put into production. For these reasons, real stateful
equipment. Once the standard is implemented, it will serve application traffic, along with live attacks and malformed
as a vendor-neutral benchmark for the performance, security, traffic, must be used to push devices to their limits.
and stability of devices. UL intends to publish certifications for
all equipment that meets the standards set forth in UL 2825. Generating real stateful traffic, however, is not enough:
Validation processes must also be repeatable yet random.
Purchasers can use one of these standardized scores to Repeatability demands that the testing equipment generate
evaluate a list of perhaps six to 10 candidate devices. Working the same traffic in the same way for each DUT to ensure
6

7. accurate “apples to apples” comparisons. Randomization processes described in this section ensure that the device
makes test traffic behave like real-world traffic, creating being evaluated can easily handle the load it will face, in
unexpected patterns that force DUTs to work harder. terms of both sessions and application throughput. If the
Randomization prevents vendors from relying on self- device cannot pass these tests with traffic known to be
published performance numbers achieved in sterile free of attacks, there is no way it will process enough traffic
environments designed to show their wares in a favorable once its security features are turned on or when it must also
light. Creating repeatable yet random traffic requires the handle other stress vectors such as malformed traffic.
use of a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). Using
a PRNG, the purchaser sets a seed value, which the testing Sessions
equipment uses to create standardized tests by generating This set of tests uses TCP traffic to validate the DUT’s ability
all data variants in the same way for each test executed, to (1) create and tear down TCP sessions at a prescribed
whether for a single DUT or several. rate and (2) handle a prescribed maximum number of
concurrent sessions. Each of these tests can be run in stair-
Creating test scenarios around these guidelines reinforces step fashion, ramping up the degree of stress by steady
the quantitative, scientific principles laid down in Step 2 and increments until the device fails. This will determine
prepares the way for the actual battery of customized tests whether the device achieves its advertised limits and how
to be performed in Step 5. much headroom it has to handle peak traffic.
5. xecute a Layered Testing Progression That Includes
E Application Traffic
Load, Application Traffic, Security Attacks, and Other These tests determine a device’s ability to handle
Stress Vectors real stateful application traffic at high levels of load.
This stage is the “main event” of a competitive device BreakingPoint, for example, offers a standard Enterprise
evaluation and, as such, deserves more detailed treatment application traffic mix that includes more than a dozen
here. During this stage, the wisdom of a progressive, of the protocols most commonly found traversing
scientific approach to testing will become clear. By changing Global 2000 corporate networks. That mix can then
only one variable at a time and testing the parameters set be customized by changing the weighting of various
forth at earlier stages, this progression will reveal the specific protocols or by adding other protocols that better reflect
strengths and weaknesses of each product, replacing the customer’s unique network environment.
guesswork or uncertainty with verifiable results.
The session and application traffic processes should all be
Once deployed, a device will not be subjected to one type of run three times. The first pass is a baseline run, using only
stress at a time; instead, it must deal with application traffic, a piece of cable and no DUT. The second pass is performed
heavy user load, security attacks, and malformed traffic all with the DUT in place but with no security or inspection
at once. That is why the ultimate test in this progression will policies turned on. This should result in the purest measure
bring together all of those elements into a single battery of of the DUT’s maximum ability to relay traffic. The third pass
tests. But to develop a proper understanding of how a DUT is performed with the device’s default security or inspection
handles specific types of stress, its ability to handle load and policies turned on. Since the device will be handling traffic
attacks will be tested separately first. Subsequent processes that includes no attacks, evasions, or malformed packets,
will combine validation of load, security, and stress vectors. the policies should yield no positive results. But running this
During the bakeoff, customers should archive all of these process will indicate the basic impact on performance that
tests so that they can be repeated exactly during the comes from having the target device’s application-aware
deployment phase explained in Step 6. features engaged.
Load Security
A device’s specialized capabilities—to block malicious traffic, Having probed the DUT’s ability to handle load without
detect trigger keywords, and so on—are not meaningful the complications of security attacks, it is time to try the
unless they perform adequately under heavy load. The opposite case: security without load. A firewall, IPS, or
7

8. unified threat management (UTM) device will never be All Stress Vectors
better at blocking attacks than when it has no background The layering process concludes by adding other stress
traffic to contend with, so this portion of the testing will vectors that the DUT will encounter in a production
reveal how a DUT’s security features perform under ideal environment.
conditions.
Malformed Traffic
Keeping the device’s default security policies in place, the This traffic can appear maliciously, or simply from device
customer runs a standard list of security attacks to see how malfunction. Either way, malformed traffic is a fact of life
well the DUT catches known malicious traffic. The purchaser on every network and must be included in the bakeoff
then customizes the tests in two ways: (1) tailoring the plan. This portion of the bakeoff progressively determines
strike list to exercise particular security policies within the how a DUT responds to malformed traffic, including frame
device and then (2) tailoring the device’s security policies to impairments at Layer 2, session fuzzing at Layers 3 and 4,
handle particular strikes relevant to the customer’s network and application fuzzing at Layer 7.
environment. As with all of the other processes in the
bakeoff, these variables should be changed one at a time so Evasions
that each test run can be used to isolate particular device At a minimum, this part of the bakeoff should include TCP
capabilities and problem areas. segmentation and IP fragmentation evasions. Depending
on the customer’s network conditions, custom lists of
Besides establishing the basic security capabilities of a evasions can be included as well.
firewall, IPS, or UTM, the customization in this portion of the
bakeoff will also give IT staff members an idea of what level Adding these stress vectors to load and attacks completes
of support they can expect from a manufacturer. Vendors the picture. Performing a bakeoff in this way ensures that
will likely never be more responsive than when they are the device being considered can cope with the entire set of
trying to close a sale, so the customer support during this challenges it will face when deployed in the real world.
phase should be excellent.
6. ay the Groundwork for Successful Negotiation,
L
Combining Load and Security Deployment, and Maintenance
This phase of the bakeoff combines the ultimate tests from Deploying untested network and security devices creates
the preceding Load and Security sections. While this does serious problems for IT professionals, network and data
not complete the range of authentic conditions that will center infrastructures, and organizations as a whole.
be included in the next testing phase, bringing these two Untested equipment requires weeks of post-deployment
validation processes together may be a watershed for some troubleshooting that is frustrating and time-consuming for
devices that simply cannot handle the combination of load staff members and that often leads to both finger-pointing
and security attacks. and costly remediation steps. This is particularly true when
device outages, security breaches, or unplanned bottlenecks
impact the resiliency of entire infrastructures; such failures
Evaluate shortlisted network security devices against a damage reputation and business value while leading to
realistic range of potential live attacks...
serious, even career-limiting, embarrassment for individuals.
By contrast, conducting a rigorous bakeoff minimizes the
Testing can expose performance-related problems caused by
risk of all these problems and saves hundreds of hours of
inappropriate security products, including high latency and
staff time by eliminating surprises and guesswork.
frequent “fail closed events.” This, in turn, may result in active
devices being deployed passively or blocking being disabled,
Bakeoffs can also lower equipment prices. Before a purchase
making the devices significantly less effective.
is completed, customers should use the information
generated during the bakeoff to negotiate a discount with
Gartner Report: “Guidelines for CISOs” the chosen vendor. That information demonstrates the actual
8

9. Do not limit these testing procedures to the purchasing cycle lab or disaster recovery backup environment. Beyond that,
alone; make them an integral part of the ongoing security pre-deployment testing enables predictive modeling across
maintenance regime by implementing a solid, continuous
a range of use-case scenarios, allowing the IT professional
to understand how devices and infrastructures will perform
testing initiative.
under different configurations and network conditions. It
also enables customers to hold vendors accountable for
Gartner Report: “Guidelines for CISOs”
supporting and improving their products over time.
Ultimately, the benefits of pre-deployment testing extend
capabilities of the device under the customer’s own network to the entire organization. Bakeoffs help IT organizations
conditions—not in the vendor’s lab. The purchaser can use control costs and reduce risks while optimizing the
that data to argue for what the device should cost based on performance, security, and stability of each device. Proper
demonstrated performance rather than marketing claims. pre-deployment testing enables an organization to meet
For example, a company might select a firewall that meets the key objectives outlined in Step 1 to deliver higher value
the specifications established in Step 1 of the bakeoff process and meet business objectives. This approach mitigates the
but that blocks attacks at only 70 percent of its advertised risks of outages and vulnerabilities, promotes rightsizing,
top speed. In that instance, it would be much easier for the and drastically reduces the time, money, and frustration
customer to make the case that the vendor should offer a 30 required to deploy new devices.
percent discount on the price of the firewall.
Summary
Once a device is purchased, the tests archived during Step 5 Purchasers of network and security devices should follow
should all be run again to enable proper configuration and the scientific, quantitative progression of testing described
ensure that the device is production-ready. The detailed here to fulfill the unique needs of their network and data
information created by these tests gives customers the center infrastructures. Without following this approach,
advance insight needed to configure equipment to they will be unable to accurately assess the DPI capabilities
remediate weaknesses and achieve the optimal balance of today’s content-aware devices operating in 10GigE
between performance and security. Using real-world traffic environments. It is particularly important that they clearly
to tune the device also promotes rightsizing, because it define necessary device specifications, use standard testing
allows engineers to build in enough of a performance methodologies, and validate devices against network
cushion to handle peak traffic, but without creating waste conditions that mirror reality. CISOs and other IT leaders can
by overbuilding that cushion. The exact data collected follow the technical recommendations laid out in this paper,
from pre-deployment tests also makes it easier to work or they can outsource the work to testing experts using on-
with vendors to remediate problems. Customer engineers demand professional services.
can share definitive test results, forestalling arguments and
allowing vendors to correct problems more quickly. All of
these benefits enable staff members to deploy equipment About BreakingPoint
smoothly, without wasting time and money on remediating BreakingPoint provides the turnkey services that
problems after the fact. organizations need to gain advance insight into how
devices, networks, and data centers will perform under their
The benefits of pre-deployment testing extend to entire unique traffic mixes. BreakingPoint professional services
infrastructures as well. Advance simulation with real-world provide actionable results in only days by leveraging the
conditions gives IT staff visibility into how device deployment company’s patented product, dedicated security research
will impact other infrastructure elements and how those team, and best practices from the Global 2000. Unlike any
elements will affect the device. These insights allow companies other offering, these services enable IT professionals to
to install a new device with confidence that it will not disrupt create the real-world simulations required to quickly and
the production environment, but without requiring the cost-effectively harden IT resiliency, minimize IT risk, and
trouble and expense of deploying the device first in a test train their own cyber warriors.
9

10. BreakingPoint Device Evaluation Service
The BreakingPoint Device Evaluation Service provides a Contact BreakingPoint
complete comparative evaluation, or “bakeoff,” of content- Learn more about BreakingPoint products and services
aware network, security, and data center devices using a by contacting a representative in your area.
customer’s own network conditions. The service includes 1.866.352.6691 U.S. Toll Free
the setup and execution of high-performance stateful www.breakingpoint.com
application and attack simulations that mirror real-world
traffic for each device. In less than a week, the customer BreakingPoint Global Headquarters
will receive detailed analysis of the performance, stability, 3900 North Capital of Texas Highway
and security of devices such as application servers, load Austin, TX 78746
balancers, firewalls, IDS/IPS devices, virus and spam filters, email: salesinfo@breakingpoint.com
and more. A BreakingPoint Device Evaluation can be tel: 512.821.6000
conducted as a one-time project, providing the advance toll free: 866.352.6691
insight needed to confidently benchmark, select, and
negotiate the purchase of IT devices. Or a yearly subscription BreakingPoint Government Solutions Group
service includes ongoing Device Evaluations to ensure that Washington, D.C.
equipment remains resilient over time. email: government@breakingpoint.com
tel: 703.443.1501
Further Reading
BreakingPoint has published a series of step-by-step test BreakingPoint EMEA Sales Office
methodologies to help enterprises understand how to Paris, France
validate the performance, security, and stability of devices, email: emea_sales@breakingpoint.com
networks, and data centers. Methodologies include: tel: + 33 6 08 40 43 93
• How to Test Dual Stack IPv4/IPv6
• How to Test Server Load BreakingPoint APAC Sales Office
• How to Test Firewalls Suite 2901, Building #5, Wanda Plaza
• How to Test IPS Devices No. 93 Jianguo Road
• How to Test DPI Devices Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100022, China
• How to Test Server Load Balancers email: apac_sales@breakingpoint.com
tel: + 86 10 5960 3162
To access these resources, visit
www.breakingpoint.com/services/.
www.breakingpoint.com
10
© 2005 – 2011. BreakingPoint Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. The BreakingPoint logo is a trademark of BreakingPoint Systems, Inc.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.