From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Nov 10 12:52:47 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686C5A2B80B; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:52:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (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 24BB212D9; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:52:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Zw8Pj-000KiG-7x; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:52:43 +0300 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:52:43 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH HPN Message-ID: <20151110125243.GB48728@zxy.spb.ru> References: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:52:47 -0000 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Some of you may have noticed that OpenSSH in base is lagging far behind > the upstream code. > > The main reason for this is the burden of maintaining the HPN patches. > They are extensive, very intrusive, and touch parts of the OpenSSH code > that change significantly in every release. Since they are not > regularly updated, I have to choose between trying to resolve the > conflicts myself (hoping I don't break anything) or waiting for them to > catch up and then figuring out how to apply the new version. > > Therefore, I would like to remove the HPN patches from base and refer > anyone who really needs them to the openssh-portable port, which has > them as a default option. I would also like to remove the NONE cipher > patch, which is also available in the port (off by default, just like in > base). I am plan to use NONE and HPN for bulk transfer, but don't see performance improvement, in both cases I see only 500Mbit/s.