From: Sowmini Varadhan Subject: Re: ipsec impact on performance Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:08:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20151202220803.GG15262@oracle.com> References: <20151201183720.GE21252@oracle.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CBE0ED7@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20151202121156.GK23178@oracle.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CBE0F39@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20151202205028.GB15262@oracle.com> <20151202211201.GD15262@oracle.com> <20151202214708.GF15262@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: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On (12/02/15 14:01), Tom Herbert wrote: > No, please don't persist is this myopic "we'll get to IPv6 later" > model! IPv6 is a real protocol, it has significant deployment of the > Internet, and there are now whole data centers that are IPv6 only > (e.g. FB), and there are plenty of use cases of IPSEC/IPv6 that could > benefit for performance improvements just as much IPv4. This vendor > mentality that IPv6 is still not important simply doesn't help > matters. :-( Ok, I'll get you the numbers for this later, and sure, if we do this, we should solve the ipv6 problem too. BTW, the ipv6 nov3 paths have severe alignment issues. I flagged this a long time ago http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg336257.html I think all of it is triggered by mld. Someone needs to do something about that too. I dont think those paths are using NET_ALIGN very well, and I dont think this is the most wholesome thing for perf. --Sowmini