Actually, this test dealt only with route filtering. It did not address any
encrypting at all. IPSec is not support on Juniper routers. There is an
extensive amount of filtering supported, but encryption is not.
Best regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Attneave, Philip [mailto:Philip.Attneave@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:27 AM
To: 'juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net'
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] IPSec performance benchmarks for M40 and M160
If you have not already seen it, this article has some good information
about performance with filters turned on. I don't recall it specifically
talking about IPSec, but I suspect the authors may have more information.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=4009
<http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=4009&print=true>
&print=true
Philip Attneave
Network Architect Phone (206) 263-4869
I-Net Project
King County Washington FAX (206)-205-5023
700 Fifth Avenue Suite 2300
Seattle WA 98104-5002
http://www.metrokc.gov/I-NET/overview.htm
<http://www.metrokc.gov/I-NET/overview.htm>
e-mail: philip.attneave@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Hwang (EUD) [mailto:RJ.Hwang@am1.ericsson.se]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:05 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] IPSec performance benchmarks for M40 and M160
Hi -- Quick question regarding 'turning on the IPSec encryption' I
have read in some articles that this can reduce the throughput of routers
(not necessarily Juniper) by as much as 1-2 orders magnitude (i.e., 10x-100x
reduction). Does anyone has test result of IPSec performance benchmarks for
M40 and M160 by using small packets and large packets.
Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:42 EDT