Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:55:51 -0500 From: eculp@bafirst.com To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.ip.forwarding and net.inet.ip.fastforwarding Message-ID: <20050909125551.k12eep11s80c0s04@mail.bafirst.com> In-Reply-To: <4321BD3D.66417FA6@freebsd.org> References: <20050908221115.038c3abd.lists@yazzy.org> <004701c5b4df$9207d260$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> <4320EDDF.6090303@errno.com> <20050909054110.08pqjx9bi884c0sg@mail.bafirst.com> <4321BA08.9060500@errno.com> <4321BD3D.66417FA6@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>: > Sam Leffler wrote: >> <CUT> >> > Maybe I should have another ristreto before asking this, but based on >> > what I understand from this thread and speaking of current 7.0: >> > >> > a. I would set both in sysctl.conf >> > net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 >> > net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1 >> > b. There would be no "down side" in current 7.0 >> > >> > Is this more or less correct? If so, will this posibly be the case in >> > the 6.0 release also or only in current? >> >> 6.0 and 7.x share the same code so the settings are identical. As to >> downside you pay a penalty if the fastforwarding code has to hand the >> packet back to the "slow path". There may also be side effects from the >> run-to-completion model it uses. You should test to decide if the >> feature is worth enabling for your environment. I'm not sure it's had >> much testing (Andre?). > > When activated on a router it gives a very nice speed boost. Process > completion pays off very well here. It has got a lot of testing at > various ISP's on their production routers. For hosts it doesn't really > hurt but is totally pointless. Andre, many thanks to both you and Sam. I will definitely do some testing this weekend. Speaking of weekends, have a great one. ed > > -- > Andre >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050909125551.k12eep11s80c0s04>