Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:43:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPSEC disables TSO Message-ID: <18116.46859.409749.756304@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170708161310o5578bbc6s7b2149f9b33d3507@mail.gmail.com> References: <18116.43755.107638.103132@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <b1fa29170708161253q6c96f8b7k6fd807b93460fd02@mail.gmail.com> <b1fa29170708161256v281889bcka9325164c1242d9d@mail.gmail.com> <18116.44624.144286.621286@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <b1fa29170708161310o5578bbc6s7b2149f9b33d3507@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kip Macy writes: > > > > Yes, exactly, there needs to be a smarter test that can distingiush if > > IPSEC is actually in use on a connection or not; I should have been > > more clear about this. The problem is that I have zero knowledge > > about IPSEC, so I have no idea how to do this. > > > > I'm worried that people will compile IPSEC into the kernel to run an > > encrypted tunnel (or the TCP MD5 signature stuff for BGP), and > > then be rather surprised that their their "normal" TCP performance > > stinks. > > Maybe file it as a PR? Good idea. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=115586 Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18116.46859.409749.756304>