RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC

Avram Shacham <shacham@cisco.com> Fri, 29 May 1998 20:28 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA04804 for ipsec-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:28:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980529133701.006b1dd8@airedale.cisco.com>
X-Sender: shacham@airedale.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:37:01 -0700
To: Eric Dean <edean@gip.net>
From: Avram Shacham <shacham@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC
Cc: Stephen Waters <Stephen.Waters@digital.com>, ipsec@tis.com, ippcp@external.cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980529161724.3185B-100000@yaway.gsl.net>
References: <3.0.2.32.19980529103610.006b4914@airedale.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Eric,

At 04:20 PM 5/29/98 -0400, Eric Dean wrote:

>Streaming a contiguous file through a compression device is not 
>indicative of real Internet traffic.  Packets of various application are 
>interleaved within flows.  The Calgary files may be a good benchmark for 
>comparing different compression algorithms in a stateful environment; 
                                                 ^^^^^^^^ how comes?

>however, they do not represent the stateless environment that the 
>Internet represents.

In my tests, I ftp-ed and http-ed random collection of files, with
identical results, so it seems that the Calgary Files are a pretty good
indication for non-pre-compressed files.

avram