Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 22:46:16 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Nick Slager <ns@BlueSkyFrog.COM> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KAME IPsec on low-end hardware Message-ID: <20011106224616.A37425@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20011107163846.H25762@BlueSkyFrog.COM>; from ns@BlueSkyFrog.COM on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 04:38:46PM %2B1000 References: <20011107163846.H25762@BlueSkyFrog.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 04:38:46PM +1000, Nick Slager wrote: > box1 ~ % ping box2 > PING box2.internal (192.168.2.1): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=35.338 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=34.032 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=33.999 ms > > With IPsec not active, response times are "normal" (~ 0.5ms) > > I'm guessing these high response times are due to the low end hardware > in use. Box 1 is a 486DX4/100; Box 2 is a P90 (no laughing please!). > Would this assumption be correct? Seems reasonable. Your throughput will definitely be CPU-bound here. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE76Ni4Wry0BWjoQKURAuwCAKCsCTaLNeHV/eUkwQOjB4i9KvgA0gCfTGeg zGbJ4fRoNg7M860cnH24Bnk= =uCoY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011106224616.A37425>