[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC
I guess time will tell. For remote-access VPN stuff (over the
Internet), there is no doubt that
stateless compression is what you use. For some of the newer
VNP-focused providers offering
QOS for LAN-to-LAN, it may be possible to use a history - even
for IPPCP.
I've worked full-time from home for a few years now - using a
direct dial ISDN link over which the
average compression seems to stay stubbornly on 2:1. I'll load
up the IPPCP image and share the results
once I have a decent sample. Not a bad case study considering
the use of IPPCP in the short term -
i.e. remote-access for laptops/SOHOs.
Cheers, Steve.
> ----------
> From: Avram Shacham[SMTP:shacham@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 9:37 PM
> To: Eric Dean
> Cc: Stephen Waters; ipsec@tis.com; ippcp@external.cisco.com
> Subject: RE: IPCOMP and IPSEC
>
> Eric,
>
> At 04:20 PM 5/29/98 -0400, Eric Dean wrote:
>
> >Streaming a contiguous file through a compression device is not
> >indicative of real Internet traffic. Packets of various application
> are
> >interleaved within flows. The Calgary files may be a good benchmark
> for
> >comparing different compression algorithms in a stateful environment;
>
> ^^^^^^^^ how comes?
>
> >however, they do not represent the stateless environment that the
> >Internet represents.
>
> In my tests, I ftp-ed and http-ed random collection of files, with
> identical results, so it seems that the Calgary Files are a pretty
> good
> indication for non-pre-compressed files.
>
> avram
>
>