Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 14:02:20 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: lev@FreeBSD.org, Kristof Provost <kp@FreeBSD.org>, Neel Chauhan <neel@neelc.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW In-Kernel NAT vs PF NAT Performance Message-ID: <adbc86a7-31e6-6e6c-4d1f-77a411bc6081@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <c125ce0b-05bb-0a99-4ec5-24b74d6e606a@grosbein.net> References: <fc638872b9bdf14c13e2d6c13e698d1e@neelc.org> <F154BCBA-4079-48CA-ACE9-F01FBCBD53D0@FreeBSD.org> <cb87cc92-59ff-119e-be43-41d51b94f7e9@FreeBSD.org> <c125ce0b-05bb-0a99-4ec5-24b74d6e606a@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
19.03.2020 13:42, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > It's really 4001 that is (and sould be) prime number. If we decide to auto-tune this, here is small table of prime numbers to stick with: 4001 8011 12011 16001 24001 32003 48017 64007
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?adbc86a7-31e6-6e6c-4d1f-77a411bc6081>