RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC

[Stephen Waters <[e-mail]>]

	I guess time will tell.  For remote-access VPN stuff (over the
Internet), there is no doubt that 
	stateless compression is what you use.  For some of the newer
VNP-focused providers offering
	QOS for LAN-to-LAN, it may be possible to use a history - even
for IPPCP.

	I've worked full-time from home for a few years now - using a
direct dial ISDN link over which the 
	average compression seems to stay stubbornly on 2:1.  I'll load
up the IPPCP image and share the results
	once I have a decent sample.  Not a bad case study considering
the use of IPPCP in the short term -
	i.e. remote-access for laptops/SOHOs.

	Cheers, Steve.


> ----------
> From: 	Avram Shacham[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 	Friday, May 29, 1998 9:37 PM
> To: 	Eric Dean
> Cc: 	Stephen Waters; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: 	RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC 
> 
> 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
> 
>