Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:52:27 -0500 (CDT) From: James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net> To: Mipam <mipam@ibb.net> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, "Vladimir Mencl, MK, susSED" <mencl@nenya.ms.mff.cuni.cz>, Ali Alaoui El Hassani <961BE653994@stud.alakhawayn.ma>, CrazZzy Slash <slash@krsu.edu.kg>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> Subject: Re: Encryption over IP Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10009242048290.20201-100000@bsdie.rwsystems.net> In-Reply-To: <20000924223816.F590@ibb0021.ibb.uu.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Mipam wrote: > > Your throughput goes down the drain, but it works fine and it's easy > > to set up. And remember, sweeping generalizations are always wrong. > > Not really. > Tcp always assumes an unreliable carrier, which isnt the case in tcp over tcp. > This can cause problems in some situations. Could you be a bit more specific? I can see where the extra overhead isn't always pretty, but I can't see where it *hurts* things other than network throughput. Actually the throughput doesn't suffer all *that* much, if you measure it and you have medium packets. For short, telnet-class packets the overhead is more noticable than FTP, NNTP, SMTP, HTTP, etc... - Jy@ 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.10009242048290.20201-100000>