Dave Taht <[email protected]> writes: > Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> writes: > >>> Why not? If it's not MTI you risk the case where you get to pick between >>> "good performance on weak devices" and "interoperability with RFC-only >>> implementations". >> >> Is there any evidence that there are devices that can reasonably run Babel >> and that are too weak to use SHA256 for protecting control traffic? >> >> I don't have an ARM device handy right now, but a 450MHz MIPS 24Kc is able >> to SHA256 on the order of 16MB/s. That's 10000 full-size frames per second, >> or on the order of 600000 Babel updates per second.
I've been meaning to poke into this a while: https://code.fb.com/connectivity/open-r-open-routing-for-modern-networks/ But I do take your point. It would be good to know that on a given 10,000 route 200 router babel network that hashing overhead accounted for .0X% of the 100% of cpu in use. You are reasonable to assume that sha256 would be low overhead relative to other factors, I think. Still, would like to go measure. Aside: Where does the 300ms figure for re-attempting a challenge and response come from? _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
