From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 09:20:52 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0F31065670 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:20:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lukasz@bromirski.net) Received: from r2d2.bromirski.net (r2d2.bromirski.net [217.153.57.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E259B8FC16 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:20:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lukasz@bromirski.net) Received: by r2d2.bromirski.net (Postfix, from userid 1008) id 0C198108A78; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:02:51 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on r2d2.bromirski.net X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 autolearn=no version=3.2.4 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (r2d2.bromirski.net [217.153.57.194]) by r2d2.bromirski.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D1A108980; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:02:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47CC304F.6040006@bromirski.net> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:07:27 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Bromirski?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willem Jan Withagen References: <497111.42659.qm@web63905.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20080301225727.GA85851@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <47CAADB8.9000202@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <47CAADB8.9000202@digiware.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Barney Cordoba , Ingo Flaschberger , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FBSD 1GBit router? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:20:52 -0000 Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > I'm looking for a stream exploder.:) > 1 2Mbit stream in, and as many as possible out. > And 7*1Gb = 14Gbit, so I'd like to be pushing 7000 streams. > (One advantage is that they will be UDP streams, so there is > a little less bookkeeping in the protocol stack ) Wouldn't it be a case for use of multicast vs unicast? Hardware is always better anyway, so why not invest in some switch that can do unicast/multicast in hardware? -- "Don't expect me to cry for all the | Łukasz Bromirski reasons you had to die" -- Kurt Cobain | http://lukasz.bromirski.net