On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:20:41AM +0100, Martin Willi wrote: > > > In particular, why would we need a boundary at all? Setting it to > > anything other than the PMTU would seem to defeat the purpose of > > TFC for packets between the boundary and the PMTU. > > I don't agree, this highly depends on the traffic on the SA. For a > general purpose tunnel with TCP flows, PMTU padding is fine. But if > there are only small packets (maybe SIP+RTP), padding to the PMTU is > very expensive. > > The administrator setting up the SAs probably knows (or even controls > directly) what traffic it is used for, and might lower the boundary > accordingly.
OK, that's a good reason. But you should probably get rid of that unused flag field in the user-interface and just provide a pad length. Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
