From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 17:55:52 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 A6D2316A41F; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:55:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eculp@bafirst.com) Received: from bafirst.com (72-12-2-214.wan.networktel.net [72.12.2.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3086543D48; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:55:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eculp@bafirst.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 80) by bafirst.com with local; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:55:51 -0500 id 00095800.4321CCA7.00009211 Received: from dsl-201-144-82-131.prod-infinitum.com.mx (dsl-201-144-82-131.prod-infinitum.com.mx [201.144.82.131]) by mail.bafirst.com (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:55:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20050909125551.k12eep11s80c0s04@mail.bafirst.com> Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:55:51 -0500 From: eculp@bafirst.com To: Andre Oppermann 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> In-Reply-To: <4321BD3D.66417FA6@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.1-cvs Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: net.inet.ip.forwarding and net.inet.ip.fastforwarding 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: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:55:52 -0000 Quoting Andre Oppermann : > Sam Leffler wrote: >> >> > 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 >