IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] How long does an IKEv1 session take to complete?

Dan McDonald <danmcd@sun.com> Wed, 18 November 2009 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <danmcd@sun.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC4C3A6A04 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qMk06OoMH-uy for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.43.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933883A6821 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-east-01.east.sun.com ([129.148.9.192]) by sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nAII2xBZ027430 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:02:59 GMT
Received: from kebe.East.Sun.COM (kebe.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.48]) by dm-east-01.east.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.4) with ESMTP id nAII2w8v021531 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:02:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kebe.East.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kebe.East.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAII2L1N003588 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from danmcd@localhost) by kebe.East.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nAII2L8W003587 for ipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:02:21 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: kebe.East.Sun.COM: danmcd set sender to danmcd@sun.com using -f
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:02:21 -0500
From: Dan McDonald <danmcd@sun.com>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20091118180221.GF1178@kebe.East.Sun.COM>
References: <32855890.1258525905711.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20091118162750.GB1178@kebe.East.Sun.COM> <f1548840911181000v79b6d52ex98d684a366551677@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f1548840911181000v79b6d52ex98d684a366551677@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Solaris Networking & Security
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [IPsec] How long does an IKEv1 session take to complete?
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:03:05 -0000

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:00:22AM -0800, Gregory Lebovitz wrote:
> Additionally it will depend on the round trip time across the network
> between the two peers.

Ahh, of course.

> Vendors who are selling network boxes that can do a large number of
> simultaneous IKE negotiations tend to care more about simultaneous IKE SA
> negotiations per second than they do the actual negotiation time of any one
> single negotiation.

Yes, the throughput vs. latency issues.  A user might care about his/her
latency (0-to-IPsec times), but a server vendor (not just a VPN box, BTW --
imagine the IPsec-protected server) might care a lot more about aggregate
P1s/second.

Dan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email