From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 25 20:23:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7775C16A4CE for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370B543D5E for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:23:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [66.127.85.89] ([66.127.85.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i3Q3N0WR046271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:23:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) In-Reply-To: References: <44658B20-9610-11D8-AAEB-000A95AD0668@errno.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040424142123.07bf3db0@64.7.153.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <089AEBC9-9731-11D8-BD30-000A95AD0668@errno.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sam Leffler Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:23:06 -0700 To: Mike Tancsa X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAST_IPSEC bug fix X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:23:01 -0000 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