From owner-freebsd-security Mon Sep 25 1:36:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from aurora.scoop.co.nz (aurora.scoop.co.nz [203.96.152.68]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8E237B424 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aurora.scoop.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01568; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:30:18 +1200 (NZST) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:30:18 +1200 (NZST) From: Andrew McNaughton Reply-To: andrew@scoop.co.nz To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: mipam@ibb.net, "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: 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 25 Sep 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Mipam writes: > > > 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. > > TCP does not require an unreliable carrier; it *defends* against an > unreliable carrier. Running on top of a reliable carrier will not > break TCP. This is true, but does not contradict what you replied to. The problems relate to duplication of error correction, and do not break the connection, but do have performance implications. I guess we all agree with each other? -- Andrew McNaughton andrew@squiz.co.nz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message