Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:29:00 +0100 From: "Muenz, Michael" <m.muenz@spam-fetish.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10g IPsec ? Message-ID: <3cbb2b5e-8b4d-6a39-f35e-5f865ad2f829@spam-fetish.org> In-Reply-To: <36b236ce-cac3-f454-df9d-66483bf84128@grosbein.net> References: <20191104194637.GA71627@home.opsec.eu> <20191105191514.GG8521@funkthat.com> <9ebdf1d3-03da-6a4c-a9ea-aafee93eccd8@spam-fetish.org> <36b236ce-cac3-f454-df9d-66483bf84128@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 06.11.2019 um 01:21 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: > 06.11.2019 4:55, Muenz, Michael wrote: > >> These were my short results via OPNsense on 4 year old XEONs. >> So its 11.2, mostly untuned and strongswan as IPsec implementation. >> If you need more detailed specs just drop me a line. >> >> https://www.routerperformance.net/comparing-opnsense-vpn-performance/ > Was it strongswan in user-level IPsec processing mode or kernel-level? > Not really sure if I understand you right, encryption and ESP should run in kernel space, only IKE packets for SA handling run in user space.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3cbb2b5e-8b4d-6a39-f35e-5f865ad2f829>