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

*To*: ipsec@ans.net*Subject*: Re: Some timings*From*: "William Allen Simpson" <Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>*Date*: Fri, 31 Mar 95 15:41:58 GMT

Wonderful! Many Thanks!!! > From: Hilarie Orman <ho@cs.arizona.edu> > MD5 > ======================= > 486 66MHz gcc -O2 1.37 Mbyte/sec > sparc ipc gcc2 -O2 .99 Mbyte/sec > mips 25MHz gcc -O 1.31 Mbyte/sec > hp 735 5.26 Mbyte/sec > sparc10 gcc2 -O2 5.88 Mbyte/sec > dec alpha 600 cc -O2 7.8 Mbyte/sec > > MD4 > ======================= > dec alpha 600 cc -O 6.25 Mbyte/sec > This is the only MD4 versus MD5 comparison, but it makes me question the consistency of the results. MD5 is supposedly _slower_ by design than MD4 -- how did it speed up? -O2 alone? > DH key exchange (512 bit, mod p) > (128 bits of exponent, table of powers of g) > ======================= > Total = 2*Offer + Reply: > Sparc IPC (25MHz) 380 msec estimated > Dec Alpha 600 (175 MHz) 26.2 msec estimated > > The elliptic curve method would speed up slightly with 128 bit exponents > > DH key exchange (elliptic curve, GF[2^155] > (128 bits of exponent, table of powers of g) > ======================= > Total = 2*Offer + Reply: > Sparc IPC (25MHz) 114 msec estimated > Dec Alpha 600 (175 MHz) 21.8 msec estimated > Need to get these estimates verified. Would like to see as large a range of machines as MD5 above. Even so, it is now clear that either will produce satisfactory results for interactive keying. Nobody is even going to notice the telnet latency on startup. The usual telnet option negotiation will dominate. Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

- Prev by Date:
**Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions (per user keying)** - Next by Date:
**Re: new Photuris draft available for ftp** - Prev by thread:
**Some timings** - Next by thread:
**Re: (IPng) new Photuris draft available for ftp** - Index(es):