IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Fri, 30 September 2011 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802AC21F8B95 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0BfsSZEWzyFA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [212.3.14.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8B221F8B91 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f15:d79:553a:a501:5839:101a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f15:d79:553a:a501:5839:101a]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F0550754BCE4; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:36:15 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9E228C8D-E7C3-4042-9394-3A477F6283BE"
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <DF6B5635-BD84-4F87-9228-3EF3BBCC7129@acmepacket.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:36:17 +0200
Message-Id: <CD38B852-5FA5-4CFC-B941-9C4F97BED622@edvina.net>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com> <4E80984A.903@skype.net> <CALiegfmyvTb57WVooKryS-ubfcg+w5gZ+zfO1zzBLn3609AzaA@mail.gmail.com> <4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net> <CAD5OKxvUOadaU0dnB7-Ho9cZ92VY+4Owuhj7oKPCx9Jy1iwT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <C2DF2C51-B3F7-443D-A047-7E6FB03E6D20@phonefromhere.com> <CAOJ7v-3AJJcdrCKcH4AJmv_016sZtcOPOo8yCv3Va65eJogAkQ@mail.gmail.com> <53C72381-DC23-4A6A-944C-B418791876B0@cisco.com> <CALiegf=nG+KXto9CXfn64CQSp3P5Lfm+S8c0xnA187Fhz=fcrQ@mail.gmail.com> <05B54E0C-B867-4D7F-825D-2E008E69B07F@acmepacket.com> <4E84F06B.7020705@skype.net> <2C381E05-59C5-4678-A431-CFDAC1098050@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBMgFetriRkyvR_pOczWX6RCpMisjzjQeBsPYj9Zg3S0zQ@mail.gmail.com> <DF6B5635-BD84-4F87-9228-3EF3BBCC7129@acmepacket.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:33:27 -0000

30 sep 2011 kl. 06:37 skrev Hadriel Kaplan:

> To date, most hardware-based SBCs that I've seen couldn't possibly do SHA-1 for STUN messages in their base hardware without either additional hardware components (which costs more money), or they have to send the STUN messages back/forth to their signaling processors on an exception path, which means the overhead isn't just the SHA-1 alone.  So to be fair I shouldn't call it so much the overhead of SHA-1, as the overhead inflicted by going beyond what things like NPs can easily do by themselves (which is the SHA-1 piece).

Hadriel,
While on the topic of the hardware, I would like to ask how these systems handle DTLS and SRTP.

/O

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status