IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com> Thu, 20 February 1997 21:35 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA06254 for ipsec-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:35:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.16.19970220163456.217f7682@pop3.pn.com>
X-Pgp-Key: <http://www.shore.net/~sable/info/rltkey.htm>
X-Sender: rodney@pop3.pn.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:39:21 -0500
To: perry@piermont.com
From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

In my experience path MTU discovery is not always present.  I think it
should be, but since we're considering the real world here (right?) I think
you can't rely on that.

At 12:13 PM 2/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Roy Pereira writes:
>> To me the biggest benefit of using compression within ESP is the fact
>> that I wont have to FRAGMENT as many packets as I would normally due to
>> the addition of ESP's 40+ byte overhead.
>> 
>> Fragmentation can slow down links considerably, especially when they are
>> low-speed (28.8k), thus anything that helps prevent fragmentation is a
>> "good thing".
>
>I don't understand this at all.
>
>If you have path MTU discovery, why would you ever fragment?
>
>Perry
>
>
--------
Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>
PGP Fingerprint: BB1B6428 409129AC  076B9DE1 4C250DD8

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status