IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring

Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> Sun, 17 August 2014 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5069E1A085F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 05:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRz5mYCdHaVx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 05:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 351CF1A085D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 05:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XIzHR-0007Hd-Tn for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:09:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:09:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XIzHR-0007Hd-Tn@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>) id 1XIzGo-0007G7-Jr for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:09:10 +0000
Received: from emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.109]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>) id 1XIzGn-0003sp-24 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:09:10 +0000
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII (a88-112-44-140.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.44.140]) by emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62421887E8; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:08:44 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:08:44 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140817120844.GA1346@LK-Perkele-VII>
References: <38BD57DB-98A9-4282-82DD-BB89F11F7C84@mnot.net> <4851.1408094168@critter.freebsd.dk> <EB5B7C64-165B-48F1-94FF-1354E917A10F@mnot.net> <5871.1408106089@critter.freebsd.dk> <53F0496A.9040307@cisco.com> <14191.1408260714@critter.freebsd.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <14191.1408260714@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.142.5.109; envelope-from=ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi; helo=emh03.mail.saunalahti.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.212, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XIzGn-0003sp-24 79fc9391d2bf7cfb77f7e42afa6b88ef
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 and Pervasive Monitoring
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20140817120844.GA1346@LK-Perkele-VII>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26636
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:31:54AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <53F0496A.9040307@cisco.com>, Eliot Lear writes:
> >
> >This presumes that the use of weak cipher suites is actually cheaper to
> >the end points than strong ones.  Is that really the case?
> 
> I think it is an implict requirement that a COTS server can do 10Gbit/s.

Well, here are some rough estimates (may be quite a bit off) based on
some benchmark data I found.
- Haswell CPU (Ivy Bridge CPU)
- 10^10 bits per second unidirectional
- Large packets
- CPU use in core-GHz (cGHz):

AES128-GCM: 		~1.3 (~3.2) cGHz
AES256-GCM:		~1.7 (~3.6) cGHz
Chacha20-Poly1305[1]:	~2.3 (~4.4) cGHz

This does not include extra processing from handshaking, but with long-
lived connections (and session resumption), it should be relatively
small load.

I think typical total capacity of single-CPU servers is about 10-14
cGHz.


[1] 256-bit, Not in TLS (might be soonish), friendly to systems with
no AES and/or GCM support in HW.


-Ilari

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status