Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com> Fri, 28 February 1997 01:53 UTC
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id UAA01940 for ipsec-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:53:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:57:20 -0800
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Message-Id: <199702280157.RAA14365@servo.qualcomm.com>
To: dharkins@cisco.com
CC: rmonsour@earthlink.net, ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: <199702180230.SAA21924@dharkins-ss20.cisco.com> (message from Daniel Harkins on Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:30:12 -0800)
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
>I support the use of compression but not in IPsec. It should be done up >higher, perhaps the transport level. It's better to compress the stream >of data before it's divided into packets than to wait and compress each >packet. I'd rather see 50 packets then 100 smaller ones. I feel exactly the same way. I've seen nothing that can beat the performance of gzip-style compress up above TCP, e.g., in SSH with the -C option. The fact that gzip is widely distributed GNUware, free of patent concerns, is just icing on the cake. Phil
- 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