From owner-freebsd-security Sun Sep 24 19: 4:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from bsdie.rwsystems.net (bsdie.rwsystems.net [209.197.223.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED31937B42C for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsdie.rwsystems.net([209.197.223.2]) (1602 bytes) by bsdie.rwsystems.net via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:52:28 -0500 (CDT) (Smail-3.2.0.111 2000-Feb-17 #1 built 2000-Jun-25) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:52:27 -0500 (CDT) From: James Wyatt To: Mipam Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , "Vladimir Mencl, MK, susSED" , Ali Alaoui El Hassani <961BE653994@stud.alakhawayn.ma>, CrazZzy Slash , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter Pentchev Subject: Re: Encryption over IP In-Reply-To: <20000924223816.F590@ibb0021.ibb.uu.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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