Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:07:31 +0200 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> To: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de> Cc: ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: WireGuard for FreeBSD Message-ID: <CAHmME9rS5TJ8D=x3Q_bEkfeNLhYXsmW=d5iuRey8%2BrkwOsd8hQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <b4e4686d-7510-699e-4386-153b655e1583@rlwinm.de> References: <CAHmME9rJonVbSRHCPy0W7Pr=vmJoMbVTHbGw0C1xwBze4Px7uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHmME9pnJqE0gaM_zPTwZ5i%2BQb7nNeSw=P4%2BVhG3aMiUYGdJkg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHmME9oNZrc5iQXwf8cpwdt%2B3hLR=3Tc4Or36Yt4dds=h8sSdw@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-m3X2=7MDA9pz2Si-yQC1tCxS5Y9SGuv5uQ9ZXrVmYqU_-4Q@mail.gmail.com> <b4e4686d-7510-699e-4386-153b655e1583@rlwinm.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de> wrote: > Did I understand correctly that both these ports are userspace > implementations and have a similar per packet overhead to OpenVPN and fastd? Indeed they're userspace ports. Maybe down the line this will be ported to the FreeBSD kernel like we have on Linux. However, performance wise, even the userspace implementation seems to have better performance than OpenVPN in my testing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHmME9rS5TJ8D=x3Q_bEkfeNLhYXsmW=d5iuRey8%2BrkwOsd8hQ>