On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 11:09 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In many cases the performance of security protocols is not a huge
> issue at all with modern hardware.
Depending on the scope of this effort I see a bunch of things that might
be worth modelling:
- additional compute resources (cpu, memory, crypto hardware, battery
energy, etc.)
- additional round trips (that pesky speed of light thing)
- increases in message sizes/reduced effective MTU
- availability (if your security protocol depends on a KDC/OCSP
server/CRL distribution point/other service, if it's not available,
you're not available)
The first is not a factor on typical client computers, but the same is
not necessarily true for the mobile phone/pda class of widget or even
for servers -- in the latter case customers say they want high enough
utilization that the overhead of security protocols is going to be
significant for server sizing.
> It has not been my experience that it is important to a level where
> metrics are requested or used.
it's very common for customers to ask "how big a server/server farm do
we need to support this expected workload?". The impact of security
protocols on that workload can be significant.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
