Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:37:50 +0300 From: "Ivo Vachkov" <ivo.vachkov@gmail.com> To: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Route caching ? Message-ID: <f85d6aa70708220737p28fb6260h699754544ccd249a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46CC475F.8030505@FreeBSD.org> References: <f85d6aa70708220003le893770uca9ceea467d85618@mail.gmail.com> <46CC475F.8030505@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Actually there is: struct route_in6 ip6_forward_rt; that "caches" the last route used (thanks blue !!!) but i think this technique is pointless in a multiflow traffic. Is it reasonable to believe that route caches can improve networking performance or we should leave it up to the routing table itself ? On 8/22/07, Bruce M. Simpson <bms@freebsd.org> wrote: > Not really, at least, not in the way one would think. rtalloc() is a > legacy function. > > ip_output() will still call rtalloc() if you pass it a filled out > 'struct route', a structure which is not a route, but an internal > request to look up a route. > > This is a wrapper for rtalloc_ign(), which in turn is a wrapper for > rtalloc1(), the function which does the actual lookup. > > rtalloc_ign() is pretty straightforward. Note however that this approach > only checks the RTF_UP flag and ifp, nothing more. This makes it > suitable for implementing floating statics, but nothing more dynamic > than that. > > regards, > BMS > -- "UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." Dennis Ritchie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f85d6aa70708220737p28fb6260h699754544ccd249a>