From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Nov 6 12:20:29 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445281B4BD8 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:20:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.muenz@spam-fetish.org) Received: from mailout-02.maxonline.de (mailout-02.maxonline.de [81.24.66.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477Qbc3zLVz42NH for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 12:20:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.muenz@spam-fetish.org) Received: from web03-01.max-it.de (web03-01.max-it.de [81.24.64.215]) by mailout-02.maxonline.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB9CC2DE for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:20:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by web03-01.max-it.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99ABB28B8B9 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:20:26 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at web03-01.max-it.de Received: from web03-01.max-it.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (web03-01.max-it.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PVrxwbQITEbP for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:20:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.24.68.132] (unknown [81.24.66.208]) (Authenticated sender: m.muenz@spam-fetish.org) by web03-01.max-it.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5AD4F28B847 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:20:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: 10g IPsec ? To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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> From: "Muenz, Michael" Message-ID: <0880bc8b-d138-e4b0-0dfe-b07d01fea3da@spam-fetish.org> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:20:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 477Qbc3zLVz42NH X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of m.muenz@spam-fetish.org designates 81.24.66.23 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=m.muenz@spam-fetish.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.57 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.998,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:81.24.64.0/22:c]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.995,0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[spam-fetish.org]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24764, ipnet:81.24.64.0/20, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.28)[ipnet: 81.24.64.0/20(-0.76), asn: 24764(-0.61), country: DE(-0.01)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 12:20:29 -0000 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