Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Tue, 10 May 2005 13:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nic.upatras.gr (nic.upatras.gr [150.140.129.30])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id j4AKZhOv016794
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 10 May 2005 13:35:44 -0700
Received: (qmail 26250 invoked by uid 111); 10 May 2005 20:35:15 -0000
Received: from 150.140.129.29 by nic.upatras.gr (envelope-from <m.iatrou@freemail.gr>, uid 103) with qmail-scanner-1.25 
 (clamdscan: 0.83/706.  
 Clear:RC:1(150.140.129.29):. 
 Processed in 0.083368 secs); 10 May 2005 20:35:15 -0000
Received: from patreas.upatras.gr (150.140.129.29)
  by nic.upatras.gr with SMTP; 10 May 2005 20:35:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 22071 invoked from network); 10 May 2005 20:35:14 -0000
Received: from upnet-dialinpool-22.upnet.gr ([150.140.128.232])
          (envelope-sender <m.iatrou@freemail.gr>)
          by patreas.upatras.gr (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <rick.jones2@hp.com>; 10 May 2005 20:35:14 -0000
From: Michael Iatrou <m.iatrou@freemail.gr>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: IPsec performance over UDP
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 23:35:19 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
References: <200505101949.12236.m.iatrou@freemail.gr> <42810057.4020800@hp.com>
In-Reply-To: <42810057.4020800@hp.com>
X-Face: *8Gl!va:8&HzlgC%IRQaxD*[{;>3OMj];U1I;[rtNn@,hA7h/cTR1!!0J`koxA2)=?utf-8?q?xj=7ELd9=0A=09N4LpVN=24=5CaU=27r?=<dFtnPd*,?d&u_g_kAnTwdv>2l}1-ae/$k1heNY.:5"9IYPy>X$msqG
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200505102335.20023.m.iatrou@freemail.gr>
X-archive-position: 992
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: m.iatrou@freemail.gr
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev
Content-Length: 394
Lines: 13

When the date was Tuesday 10 May 2005 21:41, Rick Jones wrote:

> > The "unexpected" result is that there is 30% idle time even if the
> > network is not saturated!
>
> Perhaps the sending side got intra-stack flow-controlled?

In that case, plain IP should't also have the same problem (it hasn't)?

-- 
 Michael Iatrou
 Electrical and Computer Engineering Dept.
 University of Patras, Greece