You got it... I'm not sure of the exact figure but there is definitely
overhead on the cpu for 3DES... It depends on the configuration and it
could be substantial...
wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks for the info. Indeed I meant packet size. Funny that you mention
> cpu utilization. I found myself bickering with our Cisco reseller over
the
> difference in cpu load between DES and 3DES. He said there was no
> difference and I saw (somewhere) on CCO that it was nearly 50% more
> processor intensive on a PIX using 3DES than on (ordinary) DES.
>
>
> Matthew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 3des encryption -- darn! repost [7:11490]
>
>
> What do you mean by payload? I assume you mean packet size. I don't have
> the exact figures but I the overhead on packet size is about 10%. The
> overhead on the CPU utilization could be 100%, which might be what he is
> thinking of.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sorry for repost, but part of my email was mis-interpreted as html..
> >
> > I'm currently in a debate with one of my co-workers about the payload
> > increase that 3des encryption would cause. I am sensing I may be wrong
> > here, but I was thinking that the payload increase for 3des encryption
> would
> > be a nominal 10% increase over non-encrypted traffic, however my cohort
> > believes that there would be 2x increase in payload.
> > Would anyone have a reasonable estimate, or better yet, hard data
> regarding
> > this issue?
> >
> > As always, thanks in advance
> >
> > Matthew
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11697&t=11490
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
