--9ADF8FXzFeE7X4jE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:11PM -0800, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>=20
> In message <20060221174712.E4EAC56534@rebar.astron.com>,
> Christos Zoulas writes:
> >On Feb 21,  9:34am, jonathan@Pescadero.dsg.stanford.edu,
> (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> >:
> >-- Subject: Re: IPSEC in GENERIC
> >
> >| I didn't keep careful records, I found the results too depressing.
> >
> >I agree here.
>=20
> Since kre asked for quantitative datapoints...
>=20
> what I recall is that turning on IPSEC gave roughly a factor of 2 hit
> in UDP packets received and delivered to userspace.  I honestly don't
> recall if that was FAST_IPSEC, or KAME IPsec.

And how recent was that? I have been informed that recent changes make=20
KAME (in NetBSD) not suck as bad with the SPD lookup, so number could need=
=20
reevaluating.

Take care,

Bill

--9ADF8FXzFeE7X4jE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFD+4ORWz+3JHUci9cRAm07AKCTGKjWdSRlHY477kLCawMCKpsbewCaAjOn
AvMxEBp139GQsY905OJMRr0=
=z/iZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9ADF8FXzFeE7X4jE--