AT Matik wrote:
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 19:13, Patrick Tracanelli wrote:
Also, what about some sort of algorith more similar to "plr" for "prob"
action? As my understanding prob is really a probability, which does not
mean say 33% of the packets will match (while plr says it will match -
and drop the packet), it means 33% of probability, right? This would be
different of 33% of matching rate. Lets think of a "rate" option for
"matching rate", a
"probably" not a good choice to generate packet-loss when trying kind of load
balance
prob generates random rate (fwd in this case)
plr generates random packet _loss_ rate
I think the latter option create artificial kind of bw limit
João
Tt is certainly the deal, according to the code as I mentioned in the
later message. This is why a "rate" option would do this job better than
prob which make use of random().
Anyway according to my tests this random() approach gets very close to a
percentage. From more elaborated to simple tests such as:
# ipfw add 1 prob 0.33 deny icmp from me to any out icmptypes 8
# ping 10.69.69.1
[.. and there ping(1) goes...]
--- 10.69.69.1 ping statistics ---
28 packets transmitted, 18 packets received, 35% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.229/0.280/0.359/0.036 ms
One can easily find out we get really close to the desired behaviour,
except that the order it happens is really random (which means that with
a small amount of tests, say, fewer packets, one might have distorted
results).
So I believe the lack of a "fwd keep-state"-like behavior is more
significant than the rate-with-precision stuff, when the matter is
balancing...
--
Patrick Tracanelli
FreeBSD Brasil LTDA.
(31) 3281-9633 / 3281-3547
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freebsdbrasil.com.br
"Long live Hanin Elias, Kim Deal!"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
