Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

> But the reality of the matter is that people, whether you like it or 
> not, will use it. Like Brian already mentioned, people want to see a 
> single number in a spec 

this was one of the 1st things that BMWG talked about when the WG
ws formed just because a lot of people would like to have such
a number - it is too bad that it may not be possible to come up
with one that gives the buyer any actual information to decide between
vendors on

> What if we do something like this :
> 
> A prerequisite will be that ingress and egress MTU have to be identical.
> 
> Then we send a round robin stream of the following packets :
>   - TCP (minimum allowed packetsize on PHY) bytes
>   - UDP 128 bytes
>   - TCP 256 bytes
>   - UDP 512 bytes
>   - keep on alternating UDP/TCP, increase by 256 bytes
>   - ....
>   - UDP (max MTU) bytes

that is about what I used to do (modulo alternating protocols 
within a packet size, I ran all the sizes then changed protocols but
I do not see any reason to do it one way or another)

but I do not see how that gets one closer to a single magic number
(which the BMWG designated a "millstone" after Dave Mills)

Scott

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg