[VPN] freeswan vs. kame
Travis.Watson at Honeywell.com
Tue Mar 18 19:23:50 EST 2003
Both are going to be about the same speed--not enough to go one way or the other anyway. But FreeBSD is probably going
to be a little tidier because the kernel is so tight (relatively). Since the SAs are stored there, I would give the
very partial nod to Kame (assuming you wanted to scale beyond one tunnel). The real pros/cons would be the standard
"who supports it," "who maintains it", etc. That, or what do you and/or your guys feel more comfortable with. Either
would be fine and either would work well on cheap hardware.
From: David Newman [mailto:dnewman at networktest.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:12 PM
To: vpn at lists.shmoo.com
Subject: [VPN] freeswan vs. kame
a serious inquiry despite the flame-bait subject line.
if the only metric is tunnel capacity (where 1 "tunnel" == 1 IKE plus 2 P2
SAs), which will scale higher -- Freeswan on RH Linux 8.0 or KAME on FreeBSD
4.7, of course given equivalent hardware?
no religious debates, please. thanks.
VPN mailing list
VPN at lists.shmoo.com
More information about the VPN