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

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

To: Scott Marcus <smarcus@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@aurora.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:34:55 +0000
Cc: "'Bob Monsour'" <rmonsour@earthlink.net>, "ipsec@tis.com" <ipsec@tis.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:18:15 EST." <v0213051caf3018edd1c4@[199.94.220.18]>
Posted-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:34:55 +0000
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In message <v0213051caf3018edd1c4@[199.94.220.18]>, Scott Marcus writes:
>
>>A couple more points:
>>a) i think the only place compression would buy anything, especially
>>   networks become faster, is the "last mile" (as Steve Bellovin
>>   said); the 28.8 (or so) PPP link. Now, PPP already has compression
>>   for that link (or so i remember)...
>
>If the dial-up 28.8 users are doing IPSEC, then the PPP compression will be
>ineffective.  Not so?

Touche'.
I still think that forcing compression inside another ESP transform is
unnecessary complexity; a different (ESP ?) transform for compression
would be better (and more widely used).
- -Angelos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMwp0370pBjh2h1kFAQG7lQP+Kk4qDNfQ0fWthnrOzopPtZ+9BqKduPQR
0WcATneYp48R4J3xHbe7Huf80S9T8kwKHRC4liVaC569gnm8yzfwX70Z9pH5Y5y8
oU0nCZnMwuGBagIWgMHNf9lABDfaTyd5LcjAxzHmW2moIWBUJ81A/dG5s9LoIx8O
6VxJ2YIIttw=
=SSz/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:

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

From: Scott Marcus <smarcus@bbnplanet.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