From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri Nov 30 12:35:06 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7025B1143451 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:35:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olivier@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 022DE8085A; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:35:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olivier@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (mail-pf1-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: olivier/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB80114AB5; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:35:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olivier@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id u6so2734680pfh.11; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 04:35:05 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWazKYSHDB9UaiEVWFdgaFbnhmqTOOCY9GJ6d9OINJAc+ovkjaWV FYb0E9Mv3Kc6hQoNHS4pD1F2c/W4i/+E6d4wRIE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WslAkYcXu26jHjw8yRGf4R0ZdWiUJ1VdpgqqtmgZ3PA6cphUbRAUkFtMRPD/vmwZdOXKp1ia6ukxH7gwGAb28= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8552:: with SMTP id y18mr5531822pfn.83.1543581304541; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 04:35:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1519156224.20181130021136@serebryakov.spb.ru> <881323908.20181130123008@serebryakov.spb.ru> <9ae35c3c-7af8-e513-7c20-e2d62f2b7b3e@grosbein.net> <108847324.20181130150424@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <108847324.20181130150424@serebryakov.spb.ru> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=C3=A9?= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:34:50 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: IPsec: is it possible to encrypt transit traffic in transport mode? To: lev@freebsd.org Cc: eugen@grosbein.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 022DE8085A X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.90 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.26)[0.261,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.32)[0.321,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:96.47.64.0/20, country:US]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.32)[0.322,0] X-Rspamd-Server: mx1.freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:35:06 -0000 On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM Lev Serebryakov wrote: > I'm benchmarking different possible "native" VPN configurations and I have > gif(4) and gre(4) with and without IPsec in my battery. I have tunnel mode > IPsec too. Problem with gif(4) and gre(4) that hey are tremendously > expensive, and could be more expensive than IPsec itself on CPUs with > AES-NI. > > So, this configuration impossible, I understand. Nothing to benchmark :-) > > And what about using IPSec VTI (virtual tunneling interface) mode: if_ipsec(4) ?