On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Olivier,
>>>
>>> its strange seeing so much contention on the arp tables on your PMC
>>> stats.
>>> Do you
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
>> Hello Olivier,
>>
>> its strange seeing so much contention on the arp tables on your PMC stats.
>> Do you run ping(to prepopulate arp) or static arp to remove the noise
>> from t
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> Hello Olivier,
>
> its strange seeing so much contention on the arp tables on your PMC stats.
> Do you run ping(to prepopulate arp) or static arp to remove the noise from
> that interaction?
>
I'm using static ARP on my devices (and static MAC
Hello Olivier,
its strange seeing so much contention on the arp tables on your PMC stats.
Do you run ping(to prepopulate arp) or static arp to remove the noise from
that interaction?
Also do you run with flowtable active?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé
wrote:
> On Tue, J
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> Here is suggested patch. Ermal and Oliver, can you please test/benchmark
> it?
>
Hi,
this patch reduce performanece :-(
Here are the results regarding forwarding:
x r285046.pps.forwarding (IPSEC compiled but not used)
+ r285051.pps.fo
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:48 PM, George Neville-Neil
wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Jul 2015, at 11:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> Ermal,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:00:59PM +0200, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>> E> > E> @@ -934,6 +950,7 @@ ip_forward(struct mbuf *m, int srcrt)
>> E> > E> */
>> E> > E> i
On 29 Jul 2015, at 11:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Ermal,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:00:59PM +0200, Ermal Luçi wrote:
E> > E> @@ -934,6 +950,7 @@ ip_forward(struct mbuf *m, int srcrt)
E> > E> */
E> > E> if (!srcrt && ia == NULL) {
E> > E> icmp_error(m, ICMP_UNREACH, ICMP_U
Ermal,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:00:59PM +0200, Ermal Luçi wrote:
E> > E> @@ -934,6 +950,7 @@ ip_forward(struct mbuf *m, int srcrt)
E> > E> */
E> > E> if (!srcrt && ia == NULL) {
E> > E> icmp_error(m, ICMP_UNREACH, ICMP_UNREACH_HOST, 0, 0);
E> > E> +RO_RTFREE
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Ermal,
>
> see comments inlined,
>
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 06:10:42PM +, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> E> Author: eri
> E> Date: Thu Jul 2 18:10:41 2015
> E> New Revision: 285051
> E> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/285051
>
Ermal,
see comments inlined,
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 06:10:42PM +, Ermal Luçi wrote:
E> Author: eri
E> Date: Thu Jul 2 18:10:41 2015
E> New Revision: 285051
E> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/285051
E>
E> Log:
E> Avoid doing multiple route lookups for the same destinati
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> Author: eri
> Date: Thu Jul 2 18:10:41 2015
> New Revision: 285051
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/285051
>
> Log:
> Avoid doing multiple route lookups for the same destination IP during
> forwarding
>
> ip_forward() does a
Author: eri
Date: Thu Jul 2 18:10:41 2015
New Revision: 285051
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/285051
Log:
Avoid doing multiple route lookups for the same destination IP during
forwarding
ip_forward() does a route lookup for testing this packet can be sent to a
known desti
12 matches
Mail list logo
