Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:23:06 -0700 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAST_IPSEC bug fix Message-ID: <089AEBC9-9731-11D8-BD30-000A95AD0668@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <rfto80pa1kqh3bh6801o1l7utgjqrbtc9c@4ax.com> References: <D2CFC58E0F8CB443B54BE72201E8916E94CBB2@dehhx005.hbg.de.int.atosorigin.com> <44658B20-9610-11D8-AAEB-000A95AD0668@errno.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040424142123.07bf3db0@64.7.153.2> <B8E1B8D8-9629-11D8-AAEB-000A95AD0668@errno.com> <rfto80pa1kqh3bh6801o1l7utgjqrbtc9c@4ax.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 25, 2004, at 7:39 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:58:14 -0700, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers > you wrote: >> >> Running FAST IPSEC w/o h/w crypto is still faster than KAME IPsec. >> See >> the results in my BSDCon paper. >> >> Sam > > But there is no one to maintain and merge bugfixes into FAST_IPSEC > from KAME The KAME stack might be slower, but there is active > (relative to FAST_IPSEC) development. You said that because of a bug w/ the hifn card that you cannot/will not use FAST IPsec. I said that's not a reason to not use it, that even w/o hardware acceleration it's still faster than KAME. Unfortunately the policy is that I cannot MFC something w/o it first going in -current. I'll try to test the change under -current this week but if someone else could do it then a commit would happen sooner. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?089AEBC9-9731-11D8-BD30-000A95AD0668>