IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com> Wed, 19 February 1997 18:01 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id NAA25559 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:01:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702191805.AA011615518@relay.hp.com>
To: Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.com>
Cc: 'Bob Monsour' <rmonsour@earthlink.net>, "'dharkins@cisco.com'" <dharkins@cisco.com>, "'ipsec@tis.com'" <ipsec@tis.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
In-Reply-To: rpereira's message of Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:59:30 -0500. <c=US%a=_%p=TimeStep_Corpora%l=TSNTSRV2-970219165930Z-641@tsntsrv2.timestep.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:05:17 -0500
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> To me the biggest benefit of using compression within ESP is the fact
> that I wont have to FRAGMENT as many packets as I would normally due to
> the addition of ESP's 40+ byte overhead.

Hmm.  Wouldn't correct handling of MTU discovery/DF through the ipsec
`tunnel' also handle this problem?

> Fragmentation can slow down links considerably, especially when they are
> low-speed (28.8k), thus anything that helps prevent fragmentation is a
> "good thing".

Agreed.  Any time you fragment, you've begun to start losing...

					- Bill

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status