netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] IPSEC failover and replay detection sequence numbers

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC] IPSEC failover and replay detection sequence numbers
From: KOVACS Krisztian <hidden@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:47 +0200
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, ipsec-tools-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vpn-failover@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1099062095.1023.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1099045435.2888.47.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1099054721.1027.118.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1099056277.2888.71.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1099062095.1023.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041007 Debian/1.7.3-5

  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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>