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

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

To: Derek Palma <dpalma@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
From: Karl Fox <karl@ascend.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:09:01 -0800
Cc: carrel@ipsec.org, Germano Caronni <caronni@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, dharkins@cisco.com (Daniel Harkins), rmonsour@earthlink.net, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970218094734.00e13d34@netcom.com>
Organization: Ascend Communications
References: <3.0.32.19970218094734.00e13d34@netcom.com>
Reply-To: Karl Fox <karl@ascend.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Derek Palma writes:
> When IP all traffic traffic is considered compression can have some
> benefits assuming that compression can negate IPSEC overhead on
> larger packets.  Small packets do not compress well.

This is not universally true; it depends on the compression algorithm.
Consider, for example, Van Jacobson TCP/IP header compression, an
algorithm which should definitely be one of those available for use
within ESP.
-- 
Karl Fox, servant of God, employee of Ascend Communications
3518 Riverside Drive, Suite 101, Columbus, Ohio 43221   +1 614 326 6841

References:

Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

From: Derek Palma <dpalma@netcom.com>

Prev by Date: RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Next by Date: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Prev by thread: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Next by thread: RE: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread