From: Sowmini Varadhan Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:47:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20151202214708.GF15262@oracle.com> References: <20151201175953.GC21252@oracle.com> <20151201183720.GE21252@oracle.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CBE0ED7@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20151202121156.GK23178@oracle.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CBE0F39@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20151202205028.GB15262@oracle.com> <20151202211201.GD15262@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Laight , Linux Kernel Network Developers , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , Rick Jones To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:21650 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752040AbbLBVrW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:47:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On (12/02/15 13:44), Tom Herbert wrote: > > IPv6 would be an interesting academic exercise, but it's going > > to be a while before we get RDS-TCP to go over IPv6. > > > Huh? Who said anything about RDS-TCP? I thought you were trying to > improve IPsec performance... yes, and it would be nice to find out that IPsec for IPv6 is fast, but I'm afraid there are a lot of IPv4 use cases out there that need the same thing for IPv4 too (first?). --Sowmini