On 11/23/2016 02:46 AM, Judson Wilson wrote:
> I worry about the buffer sizes required on embedded devices. Hopefully
> the other endpoint would be programmed to limit record sizes, but is
> that something we want to rely on? This could be a parameter agreed
> upon during the handshake, but that
On 23/11/16 19:13, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2016 10:22 AM, "Jeremy Harris" wrote:
>>
>> On 23/11/16 08:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> As long as you run over a network that has a smallish MTU, you’re going
> to incur the packetization costs anyway, either in your code or in
>
A) OpenSSL does not measure the actual TLS performance (including nonce
construction, additional data, etc), but rather just the speed of the main
encryption loop.
B) Still, I agree with Yoav. From my experience, the difference in TPT between
16K records and 64K records is negligible, as well
> On 24 Nov 2016, at 15:47, Hubert Kario wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 10:50:37 CET Yoav Nir wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2016, at 10:30, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi, Nikos
On 23
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 10:50:37 CET Yoav Nir wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 10:30, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >> Hi, Nikos
> >>
> >> On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
> > That to
On Nov 23, 2016 10:22 AM, "Jeremy Harris" wrote:
>
> On 23/11/16 08:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > As long as you run over a network that has a smallish MTU, you’re going
to incur the packetization costs anyway, either in your code or in
operating system code. If you have a 1.44 GB
On 23/11/16 08:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
> As long as you run over a network that has a smallish MTU, you’re going to
> incur the packetization costs anyway, either in your code or in operating
> system code. If you have a 1.44 GB file you want to send, it’s going to take
> a million IP packets
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 10:30, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Hi, Nikos
>>>
>>> On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Maybe a solution would be a better maximum fragment length extension
which allows the size can be negotiated in a more fine-grained way, as
pointed in:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg12472.html
I also found these requests asking for larger packet sizes.
On 23 Nov 2016, at 10:30, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> Hi, Nikos
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Up to the current draft of TLS1.3 the record
I worry about the buffer sizes required on embedded devices. Hopefully the
other endpoint would be programmed to limit record sizes, but is that
something we want to rely on? This could be a parameter agreed upon during
the handshake, but that seems bad.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Nikos
Can you send multiple records in one data transfer to achieve whatever
gains are desired?
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > Hi, Nikos
> >
> > On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Hi, Nikos
>
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> > Up to the current draft of TLS1.3 the record layer is restricted
> > to
> > sending 2^14 or less. Is the 2^14 number something we
Hi, Nikos
On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Hi,
> Up to the current draft of TLS1.3 the record layer is restricted to
> sending 2^14 or less. Is the 2^14 number something we want to preserve?
> 16kb used to be a lot, but today if one wants to do fast
14 matches
Mail list logo