From owner-freebsd-net Thu Feb 1 15:49:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from amc.isi.edu (amc.isi.edu [128.9.160.102]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04EC37B491 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (yushunwa@localhost) by amc.isi.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f11Nmci01294; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:48:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yushunwa@amc.isi.edu) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:48:37 -0800 (PST) From: Yu-Shun Wang To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Cc: Subject: Re: IPComp question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, Another (sort of) related question: I've got the bandwidth measurements for different algorthms using netperf. I was really surprised that IPComp did so bad. Any ideas? TCP UDP(Mbps) Ping(ms) Key(bits) ----------------------------------------------------- Raw IP 79.56 94.59/87.98 0.213 des-cbc 40.60 46.51/36.88 0.389 64 3des-cbc 19.52 22.18/19.37 0.460 192 simple 78.53 93.44/86.93 0.293 64 hmac-md5 72.86 93.86/44.57 0.398 128 blowfish-cbc 23.24 55.18/42.12 1.063 64 rc5-cbc 46.22 65.67/45.29 0.383 64 hmac-sha1 45.30 64.04/49.69 0.440 160 IPComp-deflate 24.05 27.11/27.10 0.242 Setup: 2 identical freebsd 4.2 release boxes (PIII 733MHz, 256MB RDRAM) connected through Ethernet switch. Thanks, yushun. ____________________________________________________________________________ Yu-Shun Wang Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Yu-Shun Wang wrote: > Hi, > > It turned out that the problem is in netinet/in_proto.c. > (It might have been fixed in -stable long ago, but not > in 4.2 release. :-) > > yushun. > > > --- /usr/src/sys/netinet/in_proto.c Thu Feb 1 14:56:45 2001 > +++ /usr/src/sys/netinet/in_proto.c.ORIG Thu Feb 1 14:38:25 2001 > @@ -72,7 +72,6 @@ > #ifdef IPSEC > #include > #include > -#include > #ifdef IPSEC_ESP > #include > #endif > @@ -149,12 +148,6 @@ > ah4_input, 0, 0, 0, > 0, > 0, 0, 0, 0, > - &nousrreqs > -}, > -{ SOCK_RAW, &inetdomain, IPPROTO_IPCOMP, PR_ATOMIC|PR_ADDR, > - ipcomp4_input,0, 0, 0, > - 0, > - 0, 0, 0, 0, > &nousrreqs > }, > #ifdef IPSEC_ESP > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > Yu-Shun Wang Information Sciences Institute > University of Southern California > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > > > > No, but the problem is that there was no increase (actually, no > > > record at all) under ipsec: IPComp. The number on the sending > > > side seemed right. The increase matched the ones I saw from > > > tcpdump. It looked like the IPComp packets either weren't > > > logged or were dropped for some reason. > > > > send the following items. > > - full tcpdump output > > - netstat -sn before, and after the test (on both ends) > > - full SA configuration on both sides (previous email may have included > > it) > > - ifconfig -a output, on both ends > > - netstat -rn output, on both ends > > - simple network diagram (like intermediate routers) between both ends > > > > itojun > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message