[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.