From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 19 11:25:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633F0D03; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:25:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ae@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [8.8.178.136]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E8D3B53B7; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:25:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <508138A4.5030901@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:25:24 +0400 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: net@freebsd.org Subject: [RFC] Enabling IPFIREWALL_FORWARD in run-time X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigCA59115641B47F6217D4A48C" Cc: ipfw@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:25:39 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigCA59115641B47F6217D4A48C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, Many years ago i have already proposed this feature, but at that time several people were against, because as they said, it could affect performance. Now, when we have high speed network adapters, SMP kernel and network stack, several locks acquired in the path of each packet, and i have an ability to test this in the lab. So, i prepared the patch, that removes IPFIREWALL_FORWARD option from the kernel and makes this functionality always build-in, but it is turned off by default and can be enabled via the sysctl(8) variable net.pfil.forward=3D1. http://people.freebsd.org/~ae/pfil_forward.diff Also we have done some tests with the ixia traffic generator connected via 10G network adapter. Tests have show that there is no visible difference, and there is no visible performance degradation. Any objections? --=20 WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov --------------enigCA59115641B47F6217D4A48C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQgTisAAoJEAHF6gQQyKF6+UwH/2xemnR6Si2AtLcRJrB0HpXa Kr8r2BCyTulAdBsYBznduCj4cvhpiVrXNhqIf9y1mrY4LMz0Ci98OClOTaom82t/ /1msCig4nt61ZV5X21aQ19xzWUqu/Njx1gGz63v2dBKAyhngdJ3EjGa5sU1L2RU2 wJnJ4/iSmq1IT9Y6x0iFXG+1LZTs/Kg+/9j5G8qnTJDRP0sIRwopG4Imd5MdHOLM KrnpCm2HMxvxq6xls4phaBy20p/Yy5LDl7iDgJLyK7Ro8TA05me6zVBzz9hnuJjJ zN65HAMlhZsfeXb5VxRfKh11QcS8jdYhHATUSYuHIlGibdAa4Pj+hZlWzVKTS1E= =9ra7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigCA59115641B47F6217D4A48C--