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

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

To: Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.com>
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:05:17 -0500
Cc: "'Bob Monsour'" <rmonsour@earthlink.net>, "'dharkins@cisco.com'" <dharkins@cisco.com>, "'ipsec@tis.com'" <ipsec@tis.com>
In-Reply-To: rpereira's message of Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:59:30 -0500. <c=US%a=_%p=TimeStep_Corpora%l=TSNTSRV2-970219165930Z-641@tsntsrv2.timestep.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

> To me the biggest benefit of using compression within ESP is the fact
> that I wont have to FRAGMENT as many packets as I would normally due to
> the addition of ESP's 40+ byte overhead.

Hmm.  Wouldn't correct handling of MTU discovery/DF through the ipsec
`tunnel' also handle this problem?

> Fragmentation can slow down links considerably, especially when they are
> low-speed (28.8k), thus anything that helps prevent fragmentation is a
> "good thing".

Agreed.  Any time you fragment, you've begun to start losing...

					- Bill

Follow-Ups:

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

From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>

References:

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

From: Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.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