From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 3 22:21:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDAD16A4CE for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 22:21:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD2643D55 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 22:21:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i83MLeRi069597 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:21:40 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i83MKw58069596; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:20:59 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:20:58 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Andrea Venturoli Message-ID: <20040903222058.GB69347@cell.sick.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Gleb Smirnoff , Andrea Venturoli , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <200408301924.i7UJOt22026385@soth.ventu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200408301924.i7UJOt22026385@soth.ventu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bridge + ip_alias --> SLOW!!! X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:21:43 -0000 On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 09:23:23PM -0500, Andrea Venturoli wrote: A> Just to give an idea, I tested with iperf and this are the results: A> A> internal net -> xxx.xxx.xxx.1 6.93 Mb/s A> internal net -> xxx.xxx.xxx.12 6.94 Mb/s A> internet -> xxx.xxx.xxx.1 237 Kb/s A> internet -> xxx.xxx.xxx.12 60.3 Kb/s A> A> So using the alias IP seems four times slower, but this is probably due to the bandwidth limit on the other side (I A> could only test from an ADSL): if I surf the web, choosing one of the two IPs as source, I get a much bigger gap. A> A> I tried with an "allow all" rule as the first in the ipfw chain, and got no improvement, so the firewall should (IMHO) A> not be the problem. To check whether problem live in bridge(4), you can try ng_bridge(4) instead of it and see does this help. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE