Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:33:44 +0200 From: Len Conrad <lconrad@Go2France.com> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPsec Performance (Re: Merge of KAME code) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000712192913.052a9bb0@mail.Go2France.com> In-Reply-To: <20000713022715E.say@decoy.sfc.keio.ac.jp> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007111506110.88886-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20000711174522.03075a20@mail.Go2France.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007111506110.88886-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> TCP STREAM TEST UDP STREAM TEST > NONE: 60Mbps NONE: 94Mbps > AH: 23Mbps AH: 30Mbps > ESP: 11Mbps ESP: 11Mbps > AH+ESP: 8Mbps AH+ESP: 9Mbps At those limits, the process was CPU bound, or protocol-turnaround bound, or what? That's for one tunnel, but is there significant additional overhead in running 10's or 100's of tunnels or sessions? for the one-server-to-many-clients situation. Thanks, Len Len http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com: ISC BIND 8 installable binary for NT4 http://IMGate.MEIway.com: Build free, hi-perf, anti-spam mail gateways To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000712192913.052a9bb0>