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

RE: Closing out the COMPRESSION discussion

To: Glen Zorn <glennz@microsoft.com>, Bob Monsour <rmonsour@earthlink.net>, Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Subject: RE: Closing out the COMPRESSION discussion
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:05:14 -0500
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <61CDD2C9A961CF11B6A000805FD40AA9031C76EA@RED-84-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
Reply-To: rgm3@chrysler.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

At 10:03 AM 3/19/97 -0800, Glen Zorn wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand your point, Bob.  Surely most (if not all)
>dial-up users will be using PPP, which already offers compression.  What
>am I missing?

Once you encrypt you cannot compress, or else there is something wrong with
your crypto, as I understand it.  Thus PPP compression would only act on
the PPP and IP header stuff.

No offense, Glen, but this question tends to indicate that you have missed
a big part of the compression discussion.

Another reason given for IPsec compression is to get a packet to fit into
an IP tunnel payload.  The argument against this is that MTU discovery
should handle this problem.

Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212

References:

RE: Closing out the COMPRESSION discussion

From: Glen Zorn <glennz@microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: Purpose of AIAG discussion list....
Next by Date: RE: All this tweaking is nice, but...
Prev by thread: RE: Closing out the COMPRESSION discussion
Next by thread: RE: Closing out the COMPRESSION discussion
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread