"Jason A. Donenfeld" writes:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> You don't need a timer. You already have a signal for when more queue
>> space is available in the encryption step: When a packet finishes
>> encryption. All you need
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> You don't need a timer. You already have a signal for when more queue
> space is available in the encryption step: When a packet finishes
> encryption. All you need to do is try to enqueue another one at this
> point.
Hey Toke,
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> I assumed that there probably was, but was not sure where. Thanks for
> clearing this up. I'll take a step back and try to describe this on the
> conceptual level:
Conceptual overview: exactly what I needed,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" writes:
> Thanks a lot for your responses. This is steering me in the right direction (I
> hope!). Responses are inline below.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Looking at your queueing
Hey Toke & Dave,
Thanks a lot for your responses. This is steering me in the right direction (I
hope!). Responses are inline below.
Regards,
Jason
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Looking at your queueing structure description, I'd say the reusable
Dave Taht writes:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Dave Taht writes:
>>
>>> My thought - given that at least on some platforms - encrypting 1000
>>> packets at a time is a bad idea - would be something
Dear Jason:
Let me cross post, with a little background, for those not paying
attention on the other lists.
All: I've always dreamed of a vpn that could fq and - when it was
bottlenecking on cpu - throw away packets intelligently. Wireguard,
which is what jason & co are working on, is a really