<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: Proposal: Compression of large packets: fragmentation
From: ewheeler,AT,kaico,DOT,com
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:00:22 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0112161645410.11138-100000@josefsbox.cjb.net>

Josef --

Do you know if ssh sessions over the tunnel are faster (less latent) than
ssh outside the tunnel due to the header compression (we know the payload
can't be compressed very much)?

--Eric

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Josef Drexler wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 ewheeler,AT,kaico,DOT,com wrote:
> > When we are talking about time to compress, we also need to keep in mind
> > latency.  If there is a slow compression algorithm, it could impact the
> > transfer delay;  I don't know if this will be in us or ms.  I wonder how
> > difficult it would be to implement several compression algorithms (bzip,
> > gzip, lzo).
> 
> Well latency will be mainly important for smaller packets (syn, ack,
> telnet characters, those kinds of things).  For larger packets it's mostly
> bandwidth that's important, not latency, and so by only compressing larger
> packets it wouldn't make a difference for latency but would improve
> bandwidth by up to 100%.
> 
> Allan Latham's version of Cipe with compression uses an algorithm to
> compress the tunnelled IP headers, which makes small packets tiny, and
> makes serious impact to improve latency and responsiveness of telnet or
> ssh sessions.
> 
> 

-- 

Eric Wheeler
Network Administrator
KAICO
20417 SW 70th Ave.
Tualatin, OR 97062
www.kaico.com
Voice: 503.692.5268





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]