Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:20:25 +0100 From: "Muenz, Michael" <m.muenz@spam-fetish.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10g IPsec ? Message-ID: <0880bc8b-d138-e4b0-0dfe-b07d01fea3da@spam-fetish.org> In-Reply-To: <ba515dd8-da89-2ff5-1d89-90202bc263e4@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> <3cbb2b5e-8b4d-6a39-f35e-5f865ad2f829@spam-fetish.org> <ba515dd8-da89-2ff5-1d89-90202bc263e4@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 06.11.2019 um 13:03 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: > 06.11.2019 18:29, Muenz, Michael wrote: > >> 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. > AFAIK strongswan may process all traffic in user-land via tun(4) interface for some setups. > It differs from racoon that never processes payload by itself. > I know that for route-based IPSEC strongswan creates a tun(4) interface, classic policy-based IPSEC is pushed via enc(4). Strongswan itself is not really clear about this and I never used racoon. Maybe Andrey Elsukov knows better. :) Michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0880bc8b-d138-e4b0-0dfe-b07d01fea3da>