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

RE: l2tp as ipsra solution



Bernard,

I agree with Scott that bytes-on-the-wire is only part of the overhead.

The problem is that you are comparing raw IPsec (optimized for simplicity
and speed) with compressed (optimized for size) L2TP. You are not comparing
apples to apples.

Moshe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Scott G. Kelly
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 8:44 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba
> Cc: Moshe Litvin; 'Sara Bitan'; 'IPSRA list'
> Subject: Re: l2tp as ipsra solution
>
>
> Hi Bernard,
>
> Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >
> > > As for tunneling, IPsec tunnel mode is more efficient
> than L2TP+IPsec
> > > transport mode.
> >
> > The overhead argument is a red herring.
> >
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-ipsra-req-00.t
> xt discusses
> > the issue in detail. When L2TP header compression is applied
> > to L2TP, this results in only one additional octet of
> overhead compared
> > with IPSEC tunnel mode. And when PPP mux is used, the overhead
> > for L2TP is actually much *less* than for IPSEC tunnel mode.
>
> I don't agree. The bytes-on-the-wire overhead problem is mitigated by
> header compression schemes, but this is not the only
> overhead. You must
> also consider the additional processing overhead.
>
> Scott
>