From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 8 10:32:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 83D3816A41F for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:32:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C354F43D46 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:32:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 95142 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2005 10:14:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 8 Aug 2005 10:14:50 -0000 Message-ID: <42F734D0.6F7387E0@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:32:48 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave+Seddon References: <1123040973.95445.TMDA@seddon.ca> <20050802225518.G53516@odysseus.silby.com> <1123055951.16791.TMDA@seddon.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: running out of mbufs? 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, 08 Aug 2005 10:32:50 -0000 Dave+Seddon wrote: > > Also thanks for the info on the VLAN searching. I think the adjustment you > suggested sounds good, but at bit out of my league. It seems there are > plent of things to tweak in the kernel still. Yes, there are some rough edges. I'm starting to work on them right now. :) > BTW, I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on multiple IP stacks on > FreeBSD. It would be really cool to be able to give a jail it's own IP > stack bound to a VLAN interface. It could then be like a VRF on Cisco. There is a patch doing that for FreeBSD 4.x. However while interesting it is not the way to go. You don't want to have multiple parallel stacks but just multiple routing tables and interface groups one per jail. This gives you the same functionality as Cisco VRF but is far less intrusive to the kernel. -- Andre