From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Jason@zx2c4.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id ec620221 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com (frisell.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3f062ef3 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id f1932f7a for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by frisell.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id e0fab049 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128:NO) for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:08:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id h199so127836221ith.1 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170731180632.51aeed9d@msi.defcon1> References: <20170731180632.51aeed9d@msi.defcon1> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:10:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: About compression To: Bzzzz Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Jean-Yves, No, not a chance. Compression is really better left for upper layers. I'm not sure I see the value in adding at layer 3. This is an especially contentious issue because of the history of complex and catastrophic interactions between compression and encryption (such as the CRIME and BREACH attacks against TLS). What workload are you currently experiencing that would measurably benefit from having layer 3 compression? Regards, Jason