Re: ROUTE_MPATH and hashing

Hi - On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:06:50AM +0100, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Is it IPv6 forwarding or the packets are originated locally? > In case of former, what is the receive interface? (e.g. is it tun as well)? I've tested both. Neither work as expected. In the original example, all tra

Re: ROUTE_MPATH and hashing

> On 17 Sep 2021, at 01:36, Mark Kamichoff wrote: > > Hi - > Hi Mark, > Does anyone here know how to tweak the hashing algorithm (per flow/packet/x) > that's used for the new ROUTE_MPATH option that's in 13? > > I'm using FRR 7 and I see both routes in the FIB but only one is ever > chosen a

Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD

21.09.2021 2:32, driesm.michi...@gmail.com wrote: > I have also found some mentions of net/mpd5, is this a better > implementation? Basically, it all depends on available CPU horsepower and if you have plenty of it unused, you can stick with base ppp(8). But in any case, net/mpd5 provides huge C

[Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258527 --- Comment #17 from Cy Schubert --- (In reply to Marek Zarychta from comment #16) > We should all take it easy, it is a minor breakage and probably no other > setups except mine are affected. On the other hand, the > security/wpa_suppli

[Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258527 Marek Zarychta changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|Affects Some People |Affects Only Me --- Comment #16 f

Re: Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 09:32:22PM +0200, driesm.michi...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi net mailing list, Hi Dries, > > > > Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem where I use DHCPv6 > and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address respectivelly. > > For this config everything is d

Performance of PPPOE in FreeBSD

Hi net mailing list, Currently at my parrents house we have just a cable modem where I use DHCPv6 and DHCP to get a IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address respectivelly. For this config everything is done in the kernel regarding routing. The ISP is Telenet and they give me 300 down / 20 up (mbps). B

[Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258527 --- Comment #15 from Cy Schubert --- (In reply to Marek Zarychta from comment #14) Thank you. Keep me posted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 258527] wpa_supplicant(8) from the base is not able to bring up wlan(4) interface correctly due to SIGSEGV after EAP/PEAP MSCHAPv2 authentication

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258527 --- Comment #14 from Marek Zarychta --- (In reply to Cy Schubert from comment #13) Thank you for the patch. The latest one applies and builds fine. I will be able to test whether it solves the issue or not within few days and will give feed

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 --- Comment #7 from Konrad --- I think is not related with cxgbe directly, I have achieved similar results on mlx5en(4) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 --- Comment #6 from Konrad --- Created attachment 228048 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=228048&action=edit customer kernel configuration # uname -a FreeBSD Thunder 13.0-STABLE FreeBSD 13.0-STABLE #5 stable/13-6d8

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 --- Comment #5 from Konrad --- Created attachment 228047 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=228047&action=edit /boot/loader.conf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 --- Comment #4 from Konrad --- Created attachment 228046 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=228046&action=edit dmesg.boot -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 --- Comment #3 from Kubilay Kocak --- Created attachment 228045 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=228045&action=edit single_16Mpps.svg Attach flamegraph (#2) from comment 0 -- You are receiving this mail because:

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 --- Comment #2 from Kubilay Kocak --- Created attachment 228044 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=228044&action=edit lagg0_16Mpps.svg Attach flamegraph from comment 0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You ar

[Bug 258623] cxgbe(4): Slow routing performance: 2 numa domains vs single numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 Kubilay Kocak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-qa, performance

[Bug 258623] [routing] peformance - 2 numa domains vs signale numa domain

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258623 Bug ID: 258623 Summary: [routing] peformance - 2 numa domains vs signale numa domain Product: Base System Version: 13.0-STABLE Hardware: amd64 OS: Any