Re: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review: Performance Metrics atO

Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Romascanu," == Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com> 
> > > > > > writes:
>     >> -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman
>     >> [mailto:hartmans(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 
> 10:24
>     >> PM To: Leslie Daigle Cc: IESG; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
> pmol(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>     >> Subject: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review:
>     >> Performance Metrics atOther Layers (pmol)]
>     >> 
>     >> >>>>> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>
>     >> writes:
>     >> 
>     >> I doubt I'll use the output in security protocols.
>     >> 
>
>     Romascanu,> Isn't it true that best security protocol designs
>     Romascanu,> always take performance aspects into account, because
>     Romascanu,> users will turn off the security features if they deem
>     Romascanu,> their performance reduction too great? 
>
> In many cases the performance of security protocols is not a huge issue at 
> all with modern hardware.
> There are a few important exceptions.
A significant one is the lack of hardware to support security protocols.
GigE interfaces have been common on both desktops and laptops for 5
years, but no corresponding security hardware has been similarly deployed.

The software performance of security protocols has been the more
substantial issue, and is likely to continue to be for the forseeable
future.

Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf