From: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@balabit.hu>
To: hadi@cyberus.ca
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, ipsec-tools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
vpn-failover@lists.balabit.hu
Subject: Re: [RFC] IPSEC failover and replay detection sequence numbers
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41826CB3.2080306@balabit.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1099062095.1023.14.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Hi,
jamal wrote:
> ok. It should still get better in a short period of time though.
> Moral in my point is i hope you make it an optional feature.
Definitely.
>> To play with numbers: say that you have 5K users, so let's suppose
>>there are at most 20K IPSEC SAs. If you decide to send an update per
>>second, that would mean 20K updates/second. If each update message is 20
>>bytes long, that means that on Ethernet you can transmit all of them in
>>about 280 packets.
>
> Are you batching?
Of course! I think it is a must, especially if we use such tiny
messages. But this is dependant on the user-space code of course.
> In my count: Assuming 20bytes is in a packet of its own - your numbers
> translate to 20Kpps which is > 10Mbps ;->
> I suppose SAs will be much lower rate. So you need probably a dedicated
> 100Mbps just for the syncing. I would also say SA updates should be
> prioritized over replay messages.
I think a dedicated 100mbps/1Gbps interface is not a problem anyway...
>>That's not too much. (I suppose the 20K pfkey
>>messages would be much more of a problem, though...)
>
> Why not use the netlink events (you mention pfkey).
>
> Batching them with a timeout should help.
Agreed. However, for the initial tests I chose pfkey because racoon
uses pfkey only, so it would be good enough for me as a prototype. I
think it would not be too much work to implement the netlink interface
as well - with batching included.
--
Regards,
Krisztian KOVACS
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-29 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-29 10:23 [RFC] IPSEC failover and replay detection sequence numbers KOVACS Krisztian
2004-10-29 12:58 ` jamal
2004-10-29 13:24 ` KOVACS Krisztian
2004-10-29 15:01 ` jamal
2004-10-29 16:15 ` KOVACS Krisztian [this message]
2004-11-07 17:42 ` Michael Richardson
2004-11-04 14:01 ` [Vpn-failover] [RFC] IPSEC failover - Netlink part Ulrich Weber
2004-11-04 18:15 ` Patrick McHardy
2004-11-08 10:31 ` Ulrich Weber
2004-11-08 16:10 ` Patrick McHardy
2004-11-09 8:55 ` Ulrich Weber
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41826CB3.2080306@balabit.hu \
--to=hidden@balabit.hu \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=ipsec-tools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=vpn-failover@lists.balabit.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).