Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:31:49 +1000 From: Nick Slager <ns@BlueSkyFrog.COM> To: Darren Reed <avalon@cairo.anu.edu.au> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KAME IPsec on low-end hardware Message-ID: <20011107223149.A31603@BlueSkyFrog.COM> In-Reply-To: <200111070830.fA78Uu0W029670@cairo.anu.edu.au>; from avalon@cairo.anu.edu.au on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 07:30:56PM %2B1100 References: <20011107163846.H25762@BlueSkyFrog.COM> <200111070830.fA78Uu0W029670@cairo.anu.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Darren Reed (avalon@cairo.anu.edu.au): > > 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) > > That doesn't sound normal to me. > > I've been using IPsec on a OpenBSD/sparc (IPX) box which is > definately not faster than either the DX4/100 or P90 and my > ping times are still in the 3-5 ms range to a NetBSD/Celeron-533. > In the absence of IPsec, ping times are sub-1ms. These are > on the same LAN (no router between them), however. That is > using DES-MD5. Hmmm, odd. I've just changed the encryption/hash to DES/MD5. No change in response times. I will take the router box out of the loop tomorrow and see how things go, but don't think that's the problem. Nick -- Excuse of the day: Password is too complex to decrypt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011107223149.A31603>