[Babel-users] [babel] rather than ripemd160...

[Christof Schulze]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:28:50PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
>Dave Taht <dave at taht.net> writes:
>
>> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch at irif.fr> 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.
As it is we are having trouble to achieve that figure even without 
hashing. Doesn't this mean this should be priority?

viele Grüße

Christof

>
>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
>Babel-users at alioth-lists.debian.net
>https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  against proprietary attachments

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/babel-users/attachments/20181129/8245adf4/attachment.sig>