IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Wed, 19 February 1997 17:09 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id MAA25008 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:09:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702191713.MAA02610@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: [[UNIX: localhost]] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.com>
cc: 'Bob Monsour' <rmonsour@earthlink.net>, "'dharkins@cisco.com'" <dharkins@cisco.com>, "'ipsec@tis.com'" <ipsec@tis.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:59:30 EST." <c=US%a=_%p=TimeStep_Corpora%l=TSNTSRV2-970219165930Z-641@tsntsrv2.timestep.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:03 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

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

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