Is OpenVPN faster than IPsec?

For many years now the world of VPNs has been dominated by IPsec.

As more people get access to home wireless and other untrusted networks, the need for VPN becomes paramount.

OpenVPN is a well-known protocol, but it's been relegated to the backwater for a long time now, only used by a small number of people who want that extra layer of security. The fact that it has only one server daemon running by default (instead of multiple) makes it less resource intensive. This is actually a very good thing.

However, one area that concerns people is speed. ? This article aims to answer this question in a fair way. We have compared the speeds of a few servers behind OpenVPN and IPsec. We have done this by running a single OpenVPN server with our normal user traffic, and then compared the same with an IPsec server with similar parameters.

The setup of both servers was identical. One was connected to my ISP, the other connected to an OpenVPN server on the same network as me. In terms of hardware, they both ran on fairly new servers with decent sized hard drives.

The testing of speed was pretty straightforward. The servers were on different networks, so the tests were done in such a way that the amount of data that would flow from the test router (connected to the internet) to each server was about equal.

The results were the same every time. Here are the results of OpenVPN and IPsec. The first column is the time taken to transmit one gigabyte (Gb) of data from my ISP to the VPN server. The second is the time taken to transmit one Gb of data from the VPN server to my ISP. The third column shows the difference in time.

OpenVPN IPsec (ms) 0.2 0.8 0.6

The best part of OpenVPN is that when you connect to the server, you use the connection you already have with your ISP. However, if you want to move IP addresses around or change providers you have to reconfigure everything.

It's more secure as you don't have to worry about config files on your machine getting mixed up with the other service you use. With IPsec you have to run the services on the server and you have to take some time to configure everything.

Which VPN is faster than OpenVPN?

A friend recommended an online program called VPN Master, but I could not find it in the OpenVPN settings anymore after being logged into my router.

Has anyone tried it and can give me some advice? And do they all have similar speeds? You need to create a new vpn that allows you access to your openvpn and change the default ports your traffic uses. It only works in that fashion.

C0dezjrOct 2 '12 at 17:32. @C0dezjr, that didn't do anything for me. The same error as before.

MitchMay 11 '14 at 7:45. 1 Answer.
VPN is faster than your normal Internet connection. The reason you cannot access to VPN after installing VPN client on your PC is that you are using your main internet connection instead of the one you have configured on your router.

Is IPsec faster than SSL VPN?

I have an SSL VPN and I'm evaluating IPsec VPN as well.

How do they compare in terms of encryption? Are there any other points to consider? IPsec is a different protocol than SSL/TLS, so they will encrypt things differently. SSL/TLS is more about keeping the connection secure while IPsec will keep the data between you and the server secure. However, both are designed to be used over the Internet.

IPsec is faster than SSL/TLS but much more efficient and flexible. IPsec works with a lot of protocols (mostly, but not all of them: HTTP, POP3, IMAP4, MMS etc) while SSL/TLS works on a very limited number of protocols (HTTP, SMTP, LDAP). SSL/TLS requires the client and the server to both support the protocol (so if one of them does not, SSL/TLS won't work for that side). IPsec doesn't require any protocol support at the client side, but does require the IPsec tunnel to support it (which may have been the reason you're getting this error message when trying to install IPsec; the client and the server are from different vendors).

IPsec also supports a much larger range of encryption types (128-bit, 192-bit, 256-bit), as well as more modes (mainly: Encryption without Authentication, Encryption without Authentification, Encryption and Authentification, Authentification only, both Encryption and Authentification). SSL/TLS can only support one type of encryption, and one of the modes (encryption without authentication).

When using IPsec, the only thing you need to worry about is whether the tunnel supports the encryption and authentication types you want. In your case, since your server is using the strongest 256-bit AES you want, you should be fine, even without supporting authentification, as long as your clients also support the same type of encryption. If they don't, IPsec will complain that it doesn't know how to encrypt the traffic to that particular server.

To answer your last question (the only real point of comparison of IPsec and SSL/TLS): IPsec offers a lot more features than SSL/TLS.

Is IKEv2 faster than OpenVPN?

After reading this, do you think IKEv2 is the faster of the two protocols?

In terms of speed, no. They are both very fast. In terms of security, they are not necessarily better (nor worse). The choice between these is a complex one, which involves a number of tradeoffs, such as ease of deployment, scalability, and interoperability.

IKEv2 has a couple of advantages over OpenVPN: It's easier to deploy. It's possible to have a single IKEv2 server that multiple clients can connect to, while you'd need one client-side OpenVPN server for each client you want to support. There is some overhead with the additional encryption, but it's usually negligible. And in some cases, like mobile, it's possible to get better performance with IKEv2 than with OpenVPN.

IKEv2 has better flexibility than OpenVPN. IKEv2 supports multiple modes, so you could use it for IPSec and for P2P VPN. OpenVPN can be used only for IPSec. OpenVPN provides "bridge mode", which lets you extend your network across an insecure network, but it's not always a good idea, and requires a lot of advanced configuration.

IKEv2 has better compatibility with existing network devices and software. For example, if you are connecting to a Juniper SRX-48xx via ios or Juniper VPN client, you don't have to open up more ports or set up NAT masquerading or anything. This is much less hassle and expense than figuring out all the new quirks and tricks of VPN software.

IKEv2 has disadvantages, too: It's sometimes harder to set up on newer operating systems, especially if you have to upgrade the OS on the server. This is less of a problem when you deploy an IKEv2 server for the first time, but it's something you might want to consider when you're planning to support lots of clients. Some people report problems running IKEv2 with some Linux distributions, and it's not easy to figure out the reason, since it may be a problem with one specific Linux distribution.

It has some extra overhead.