100 lines
2.7 KiB
TeX
100 lines
2.7 KiB
TeX
% Chapter Template
|
|
|
|
\chapter{Results} % Main chapter title
|
|
|
|
\label{Results}
|
|
|
|
This chapter presents the results of the benchmark suite across all
|
|
ten VPN implementations and the internal baseline. Results are
|
|
organized by first establishing overhead under ideal conditions, then
|
|
examining how each VPN performs under increasing network impairment.
|
|
The chapter concludes with findings from the source code analysis.
|
|
|
|
\section{Baseline Performance}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Under the baseline impairment profile (no added latency, loss, or
|
|
% reordering), the overhead introduced by each VPN relative to the
|
|
% internal (no VPN) baseline and WireGuard can be measured in isolation.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Throughput Overhead}
|
|
|
|
% TCP and UDP iperf3 results at baseline profile.
|
|
% Compare all VPNs against internal and WireGuard.
|
|
% Consider a bar chart or grouped table.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Latency Overhead}
|
|
|
|
% Ping RTT results at baseline profile.
|
|
% Show min/avg/max/mdev per VPN.
|
|
|
|
\section{Impact of Network Impairment}
|
|
|
|
This section examines how each VPN responds to the Low, Medium, and
|
|
High impairment profiles defined in Chapter~\ref{Methodology}.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Ping}
|
|
|
|
% RTT and packet loss across impairment profiles.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{TCP Throughput}
|
|
|
|
% TCP iperf3: throughput, retransmits, congestion window.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{UDP Throughput}
|
|
|
|
% UDP iperf3: throughput, jitter, packet loss.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Parallel TCP}
|
|
|
|
% Parallel iperf3: throughput under contention (A->B, B->C, C->A).
|
|
|
|
\subsection{QUIC Performance}
|
|
|
|
% qperf: bandwidth, TTFB, connection establishment time.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Video Streaming}
|
|
|
|
% RIST: bitrate, dropped frames, packets recovered, quality score.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Application-Level Download}
|
|
|
|
% Nix cache: download duration for Firefox package.
|
|
|
|
\section{Tailscale Under Degraded Conditions}
|
|
|
|
% The central finding: Tailscale outperforming the raw Linux
|
|
% networking stack under impairment.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Observed Anomaly}
|
|
|
|
% Present the data showing Tailscale exceeding internal baseline
|
|
% throughput under Medium/High impairment.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Congestion Control Analysis}
|
|
|
|
% Reno vs CUBIC, RACK disabled to avoid spurious retransmits
|
|
% under reordering.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Tuned Kernel Parameters}
|
|
|
|
% Re-run results with tuned buffer sizes and congestion control
|
|
% on the internal baseline, showing the gap closes.
|
|
|
|
\section{Source Code Analysis}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Feature Matrix Overview}
|
|
|
|
% Summary of the 131-feature matrix across all ten VPNs.
|
|
% Highlight key architectural differences that explain
|
|
% performance results.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Security Vulnerabilities}
|
|
|
|
% Vulnerabilities discovered during source code review.
|
|
|
|
\section{Summary of Findings}
|
|
|
|
% Brief summary table or ranking of VPNs by key metrics.
|
|
% Save deeper interpretation for a Discussion chapter. |