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

Re: Heartbeats draft (fwd)

To: pcn@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Heartbeats draft (fwd)
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:50:48 +0930
CC: Chris Trobridge <CTrobridge@baltimore.com>, ipsec mailling list <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <1FD60AE4DB6CD2118C420008C74C27B854A082@baltimore.com> <38E07DBC.A3C9F3D6@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

I agree with Chinna on virtually all points. One additional comment
below:

chinna pellacuru wrote:

<trimmed...>

> Firstly heartbeats are not going to be 'cheap', atleast from our experience they
> are not cheap even without the equivalent of SPI lists. If you had a lot of
> peers, and if you use the recommended heartbeat interval of 20 seconds, then the
> box is sending/processing a considerable amount of heartbeat traffic.

The proposed mechanism adds a sliding window computation on the
receiver. In the remote access case (the most common case, I think the
receiver is that gateway. This becomes significant as the number of SAs
becomes large.

Scott

References:

RE: Heartbeats draft (fwd)

From: Chris Trobridge <CTrobridge@baltimore.com>

Re: Heartbeats draft (fwd)

From: chinna pellacuru <pcn@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: How to call from kernel to user program
Next by Date: Re: Availability of Public Domain/Freeware for Win32
Next by thread: Q:Regarding AH & ESP
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread