netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).