RE: MD5 is slow

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

There is a trend to move to ARM on desktops. Apple has finished. Microsoft has ambitious plans. RISC architecture is 
gaining more attention now. It is the trend that makes sense to support.

RISC has consequences: more cores, greater effectiveness (in terms of power and cost), and a lower cost per workload, 
but fewer resources per core (always) and lower frequency (typically).

Pointing to CISC is not in the trend.
Agree, CISC is probably fast enough not to pay attention to the hash calculation time (if you do not care about an 
additional 1ms*2(input/output)*5(hops) on the control plane).
Ed/
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 17:36
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Subject: Re: MD5 is slow

> I don't know what's common right this minute (as I haven't been 
> shopping for routers for a bit), but for example, all the Juniper MXes 
> outside of the MX80 have been competent-to-beefy Intel CPUs.  I don't 
> think the routers likely to be running a lot of BGP are going to be 
> using some low-end CPU.


Anything reasonably newer on MX has Haswell or Icy Lakes in them, and multicore. But even that Ford Model T of an MX80 
wouldn't flinch at MD5 operations.

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 9:33 AM Chris Adams via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
wrote:

> Once upon a time, nanog () immibis com <nanog () immibis com> said:
> > A hash is also way faster than 5ms to compute. I suggest doing your 
> > own
> benchmark. Run it on an old raspberry pi or one of Amazon's cheapest 
> ARM servers to be sure it's comparable to typical router CPU hardware.
>
> I don't know what's common right this minute (as I haven't been 
> shopping for routers for a bit), but for example, all the Juniper MXes 
> outside of the MX80 have been competent-to-beefy Intel CPUs.  I don't 
> think the routers likely to be running a lot of BGP are going to be 
> using some low-end CPU.
> --
> Chris Adams <cma () cmadams net>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/RI
> 46RBUWSGZU7CWSCOPIB6SQZNWIIJYE/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/BE3UNLEPJKFSQCIEDAERG4DNEVVY47UW/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/R2MNUBZ6QOQUG4GLASIB7UHZWNG3VHHT/