Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:53:24 +0200 From: Len Conrad <lconrad@Go2France.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Merge of KAME code Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000711174522.03075a20@mail.Go2France.com> In-Reply-To: <200007111358.JAA64577@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110343110.87454-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110343110.87454-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Functioning IPsec with IKE is going to become a necessity in the very near >future, and if we >desire to maintain our momentum it's necessary to support both in the >active release train. For the common situ of one-to-many tunneling, I hope that the "one" (server) gets some hardware-assist for IPsec encryption to keep up with the many tunnels. That couple with the many's running FBSD + IPsec would be a winner with industrial capacity. Has anybody benchmarked or simulated how many tunnels and bits/sec one software-only FreeBSD IPsec server can support? Len Len http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com: ISC BIND 8 installable binary for NT4 http://IMGate.MEIway.com: Build free, hi-perf, anti-spam mail gateways To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000711174522.03075a20>