From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 8 19:03:04 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6429CE71 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-x22f.google.com (mail-ve0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7021750 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id jx11so2874882veb.34 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:03:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ti5UnfcOGNlNh8qPo4qoWgr6lgcArtOaGv2UpmEPLe4=; b=ka6tl1xSHIQ+WW8OO3CdJLiHcHNIbxfSIu5wjNhVs1Xhy+5LNfRWJDSLnxZoza52lN JKZuzFiS/AHQzKi7B4heN7UridejRIsgSvlr2pFQN3lcnUoguWV6RvbrjoedKKy3f8Jd mUdEp21wUMeaVUsh3jUXXV5oAkdcVpVcbWgCDz7Xb0lIVyblF0bN0GAzI1EpQipmfJmP adbjDb9KtE3MajCpt+YlDTW44RKWwTfciY2fxN7ofYJD1EUIgXmOqlFi7Rd0GCG45ldy CTP/qNCiBIY7sPEWgYyiR6RdGkHf/EUrEId/1GQJG1rcb4pqPuMDsvSomqVhrbJRDy8+ 58SA== X-Received: by 10.52.171.227 with SMTP id ax3mr99039vdc.34.1386529383307; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:03:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: cochard@gmail.com Received: by 10.58.123.5 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 11:02:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <523457A1.3090606@debian.org> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:02:42 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: X3jWpYT5UQIhlxHylHvIjEzJqec Message-ID: Subject: Re: IPSEC To: Eitan Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , Robert Millan , "debian-bsd@lists.debian.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 19:03:04 -0000 On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > Hi all, > > I understand this is an old thread but I do not see an answer here. > Can anyone answer the question below? > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Robert Millan wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> Is there any particular reason (performance, stability concerns...) >> IPSEC support is not enabled in GENERIC? >> >> In Debian GNU/kFreeBSD we're considering enabling it in our default >> builds, due to increased user demand and as it is already enabled for >> our Linux-based flavours. >> >> However we're concerned about diverging from FreeBSD as there might be >> unforeseen consequences. Is there any specific concern on your side? >> >> If not, perhaps it could be considered for HEAD after 10.0 release? > > Here are my own bench result regarding forwarding speed (paquet-per-second) with a kernel compiled without-ipsec and with ipsec (ipsec is not enabled during the tests, just present on the kernel) of FreeBSD 10.0-PRERELEASE: ministat -s without-ipsec ipsec x without-ipsec + ipsec +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |x + x + +x x x + +| | |__________________A_____M____________| | | |_______________M_________A__________________________| | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ N Min Max Median Avg Stddev x 5 1646075 1764528 1725461 1713080 44560.059 + 5 1685034 1833206 1724461 1748666.8 62356.218 No difference proven at 95.0% confidence I didn't see negative impact of enabling ipsec (it's even a little bit better with it). Regards, Olivier