[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MD5 versus SHA

> From kasten@mailserv-D.ftp.com Tue Mar 28 09:57:13 1995

>  > c) my argument against MD5 in IPv6 is that the requirements state
>  >         that IPv6 should run at least as fast as IPv4.
>  >         
>  >         "At least as fast" presumes the existing hardware;
>  >         I can do IPv4 at 75 Mbps with no real effort, and 120 Mbps
>  >         with some effort (i.e., user-level protocols sharing a
>  >         kernel-based port). 
>  >         That's in software on the existing hardware.
>  >         If I ran IPv6 on the same hardware, it'd have to be
>  >         an all-software implementation, which would slow it to
>  >         around 40 Mbps.
> I am somewhat familiar with the IPv6 requirements. The intent of the
> text is that, everything else being equal, the two protocols should
> be roughly the same speed. Now, 40 and 75 are not "roughly the same
> speed", true. But everything else is NOT equal. Your note implies
> that, for v4 there is some hardware assist, whilst v6 would not


No hardware assist was used for 75 Mbps or 120 Mbps. The latter
is via dual-stack protocols, which is a software-only modification
to the drivers.