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