RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC

Eric Dean <edean@gip.net> Fri, 29 May 1998 20:58 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA04905 for ipsec-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:20:43 -0400
From: Eric Dean <edean@gip.net>
To: Avram Shacham <shacham@cisco.com>
cc: Stephen Waters <Stephen.Waters@digital.com>, ipsec@tis.com, ippcp@external.cisco.com
Subject: RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980529103610.006b4914@airedale.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980529161724.3185B-100000@yaway.gsl.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Using the Calgary files benchmark with LZS algorithm, the compression ratio
> of IP datagrams with MTU of 1500 octets was 1.82:1, not that far from the
> max the algorithm can offer 2.2:1.  Stateless compression is a must in IP,
> so the overall performance gain is pretty significant.  And, stateless
> compression has its implementation advantages.

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; 
however, they do not represent the stateless environment that the 
Internet represents.

-eric