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

Re: compression and encryption

To: karn@qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: compression and encryption
From: Greg Minshall <minshall@ipsilon.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:38:41 -0800
cc: smb@research.att.com, ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:24:00 PST." <m0vKuqt-000MF6C@laptop>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Phil,

> (where header overhead is most significant) are now done with
> intelligent local agents. Examples include email, netnews and web
> surfing.  Most of these agents speak various client/server protocols
> over the wire with much larger average packet sizes as compared to
> character-at-a-time telnet. This makes header overhead much less
> significant.

I think there continue to be protocols (RTP comes to mind) in which the 
header:payload ratio tends to be too high (even on 28.8 links).  I'm not 
arguing that we need compression in ipsec; i'm just making the point that 
*compression* isn't necessarily a dead end, even in today's internet.

Greg

Follow-Ups:

Re: compression and encryption

From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>

References:

Re: compression and encryption

From: Phil Karn <karn@tis.com>

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-hmac-md5-01.txt
Next by Date: Re-keying RTP streams
Next by thread: Re: proposed IPSEC changes/extensions
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread