IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] record layer limits of TLS1.3

Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> Wed, 23 November 2016 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jgh@wizmail.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3065712A2C2 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:22:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EgqD3Z-X_AUH for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wizmail.org (wizmail.org [IPv6:2a00:1940:107::2:0:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 705A8129A6C for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2a00:b900:109e:0:c5d6:c61b:f5e0:b51f] (helo=lap.dom.ain) by wizmail.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87_RC123) id 1c9cBI-0005Vk-JY for tls@ietf.org (return-path <jgh@wizmail.org>); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:22:04 +0000
To: tls@ietf.org
References: <1479884799.2563.3.camel@redhat.com> <B9F508E0-76F0-4252-AA24-38E3205F8BA9@gmail.com> <1479889806.2563.15.camel@redhat.com> <182CAE27-5A08-45FB-BC4D-D9397FFB5EF8@gmail.com>
From: Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>
Message-ID: <66c428f3-33a9-3a19-7ec7-b090d6a3831a@wizmail.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:22:01 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <182CAE27-5A08-45FB-BC4D-D9397FFB5EF8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Pcms-Received-Sender: [2a00:b900:109e:0:c5d6:c61b:f5e0:b51f] (helo=lap.dom.ain) with esmtpsa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/hhx8GHB8snGFUsqHr1rqziqeuBw>
Subject: Re: [TLS] record layer limits of TLS1.3
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:22:22 -0000

On 23/11/16 08:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
> As long as you run over a network that has a smallish MTU, you’re going to incur the packetization costs anyway, either in your code or in operating system code. If you have a 1.44 GB file you want to send, it’s going to take a million IP packets either way and 100 million AES block operations. 

Actually, no.  Everybody offloads ether-frame packetization and TCP
re-segmentation to the NIC, talking 64kB TCP segments across the NIC/OS
boundary.

Precisely because of the packetization cost.
-- 
Jeremy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email