RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Roy Pereira <rpereira@timestep.com> Tue, 18 February 1997 19:49 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa16138; 18 Feb 97 14:49 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06844; 18 Feb 97 14:49 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id OAA16423 for ipsec-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:37:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=TimeStep_Corpora%l=TSNTSRV2-970218175816Z-126@tsntsrv2.timestep.com>
From: Roy Pereira <rpereira@timestep.com>
To: "'ipsec@tis.com'" <ipsec@tis.com>, 'Bob Monsour' <rmonsour@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:58:16 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
While compression make some sense at a transport layer, it also make sense to implement it with IPSec as well. Certain situations do not have access to transport layer compression (ie. firewalls) and IPSec compression would greatly affect performance, expecially when you consider that in certain situations where a lot of large packets are being sent accross, adding the ESP header would cause fragmentation. When compression is used, fragmentation would not normally be required. I don't like the idea of adding it to the pad length field. Although 255 bytes of padding is more than enough, changing that fields role might break some current implementations. I like the idea presented in <draft-sabin-lzs-payload-00.txt>, whereas the compression byte field is placed as the first byte of the ESP data. After this byte, is the compressed data. We might also wish to expand this compression byte field to a small header for future growth; Eg: compression_header :== { word compression_header_length; byte flags; // 0x01 = compressed } >---------- >From: Bob Monsour[SMTP:rmonsour@earthlink.net] >Sent: Monday, February 17, 1997 7:14 PM >To: ipsec@tis.com >Subject: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) > >Since my last posting about adding compression in the form of an "optional >feature of ESP", I have received several offline inputs from wg members. >Specifically, two issues arose: > >1. What is the status of adding compression to ESP? > > I know that there are some wg members who support the use of compression, > some who don't and some who haven't expressed an interest either way. >Well, > the time has come to decide. PLEASE RESPOND BY INDICATING YOUR POSITION. > Be sure to copy the wg list in your reply. > >2. Placement of the "packet compressed/not-compressed" byte/bit > > Several people have suggested that rather than using a whole byte for this > purpose, simply "steal" the uppermost bit of the pad length field. This is > a simple solution. It was suggested to me that a maximum of 128 bytes of > padding is sufficient. Note that the preferred ESP transform for the IPSEC > DOI (draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-des-md5-03.txt) provides for up to 255 bytes of > padding. There are two ways to approach this issue: > > (a) alter the transform draft to specify a max of 128 bytes of padding, >or > > (b) for implementations which do not negotiate the use of compression >(for > a particular SA, or never), they can continue to use up to 255 bytes > of padding; for those that *do* support compression, the maximum >padding > would be 128 bytes. > > INPUTS ON THIS DECISION ARE NEEDED. Assuming that the group wants to >proceed > with compression, the decision on this issue will affect the ESP draft, >the > latest of which has yet to be issued. So, please respond. > >Regards, >Bob > > >
- TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Matt Thomas
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Derek Palma
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Roy Pereira
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Rob Adams
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Derrell Piper
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Terry L. Davis, Boeing Information & Support Services, Bellevue, WA
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Dennis Glatting
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Rob Adams
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Michael Richardson
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Kent Fitch
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Daniel Harkins
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Germano Caronni
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Marcel Waldvogel
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Rodney Thayer
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Derek Palma
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) carrel
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Matt Thomas
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Daniel Harkins
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Karl Fox
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) C. Harald Koch
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) C. Harald Koch
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Steven Bellovin
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Karl Fox
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Karl Fox
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Angelos D. Keromytis
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Scott Marcus
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Matt Thomas
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Angelos D. Keromytis
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Dennis Glatting
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Stephen Kent
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Jim Thompson
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Perry E. Metzger
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) C. Harald Koch
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Roy Pereira
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Perry E. Metzger
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) EKR
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) John W. Richardson
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) C. Harald Koch
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Rob Adams
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Angelos D. Keromytis
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Dennis Glatting
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) EKR
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Rodney Thayer
- RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Stephen Kent
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Stephen Kent
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Stephen Kent
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Dennis Glatting
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Phil Karn
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Phil Karn
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Phil Karn
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Phil Karn
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Bob Monsour
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Marcel Waldvogel
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Stephen Kent
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Perry E. Metzger
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Perry E. Metzger
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) Phil Karn
- Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply) James Hughes