Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>