On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronune...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Luigi Rizzo <ri...@iet.unipi.it> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronune...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> professor luigi >>> >>> where can I find the code for netmap-fwd you mentioned on usenix paper? >>> >>> >> that has been renamed to bridge.c >> >> cheers >> luigi >> > > so it does not actually forwards ip packets, does bridging in fact > other than OVS and click is there something to forward l3 packets? > > dear professor luigi, i have some numbers, I am filtering 773Kpps with kipfw using 60% of CPU and system using the rest, this system is a 8core at 2.4Ghz, but only one core is in use in this next round of tests, my NIC is now an avoton with igb(4) driver, currently with 4 queues per NIC (total 8 queues for kipfw bridge) i have read in your papers we should expect something similar to 1.48Mpps how can I benefit from the other CPUs which are completely idle? I tried CPU Affinity (cpuset) kipfw but system CPU usage follows userland kipfw so I could not set one CPU to userland while other for system can you please enlighten? > > >> >> >> >>> >>> ** >>> https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc12/atc12-final186.pdf >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronune...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> hello again patrick >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Patrick Tracanelli < >>>> eks...@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > (Machine-A)<-->Machine-B<--->(MachineC) >>>>> > >>>>> > Machine-A: >>>>> > em0 172.16.251.3/24 >>>>> > >>>>> > Machine-B: >>>>> > em1: 172.16.251.1/24 >>>>> > em2: 172.16.252.1/24 >>>>> > 10.0-STABLE w/ latest netmap-ipfw and netmap code from google code >>>>> > repository >>>>> > >>>>> > Machine-C: >>>>> > em0 172.16.252.3/24 >>>>> >>>>> Now, your scenario is a typical routing topology. kipfw has no packet >>>>> forwarding capabilities whats why when you start it, you are out of >>>>> forwarding capabilities and therefore, out of communication between >>>>> machine >>>>> A and C because they just need it in your topology. >>>>> >>>>> So for your testing purposes read again what Mahaza said: >>>>> >>>>> >> ipfw works as a bridge and copy >>>>> >> incoming packets to em0 to em1 if they pass defined rules (and vice >>>>> versa, >>>>> >> from em1 to em0). >>>>> >>>>> Got it? kipfw will work as a BRIDGE and COPY between the NIC ports. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore on your topology do a simple change: >>>>> >>>>> Machine-C: >>>>> ifconfig em0 172.16.251.4/24 >>>>> >>>>> So machine C will be in the same network of machine A. >>>>> >>>>> WITHOUT kipfw you will be OUT of communication. If you want to have >>>>> communication without kipfw please configure if_bridge(4) properly. >>>>> >>>>> Now WHEN you ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 you will BRIDGE em1 and em2 >>>>> ports and therefore you will HAVE communication between the NICS. >>>>> >>>>> And you are done, just as a miracle! Thanks to Luigi. >>>>> >>>> >>>> YES IT WORKED YES >>>> thank you VERY MUCH for the kind help and for making it clear all the >>>> stuff I missed reading, yes I assume I should have read more or at least >>>> understood >>>> now I can see how the things works and it does work >>>> >>>> THANK YOU again very much >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Now its time to have some fun: >>>>> >>>>> ipfw/ipfw add pipe 1 all from 172.16.251.0/24 to 172.16.251.0/24 >>>>> ipfw/ipfw <http://172.16.251.0/24ipfw/ipfw> pipe 1 config bw >>>>> 128Kbit/s delay 300 >>>>> >>>>> and now ping machine-A and machine-C and see dummynet working as >>>>> expected... >>>>> >>>>> I believe you can keep on with your testings now!!! :-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> yes it worked as well >>>> >>>> now let me ask you all, other than click, does netmap offers something >>>> that can do packet forwarding? simple packet forwarding like the scenario I >>>> was trying before? I know this is not kipfw and not bridge but is there >>>> something? >>>> >>>> thank you >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> BTW Luigi, I see netmap was commited to GENERIC on -CURRENT. I believe >>>>> it may be a good idea to add netmap-ipfw to the base system now, to both >>>>> promote more testing and also to be a good companion to netmap on GENERIC. >>>>> I dont mean a new ipfw-netmap binary under /sbin/ but just the code on >>>>> /usr/src/tools/tools. >>>>> >>>> >>>> yes and some handbook or a better README that at least mentions the >>>> correct syntax for the tools >>>> I think adrian chadd mentioned something about that in an earlier >>>> message >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've been using netmap-ipfw for a while and sure it lacks more >>>>> flexbility like the ability to kipfw several ports, etc. But as it is >>>>> right >>>>> now, it's very stable and reliable for a preliminary code. Thats why I >>>>> believe it should be on the base system. Thank you very much for the >>>>> incredible technology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- >> Prof. Luigi RIZZO, ri...@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione >> http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa >> TEL +39-050-2211611 . via Diotisalvi 2 >> Mobile +39-338-6809875 . 56122 PISA (Italy) >> -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- >> > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
