From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 29 08:27:08 2004 Return-Path: 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 5FEC816A4CE for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host130.ipowerweb.com (host130.ipowerweb.com [66.235.192.160]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7162E43D4C for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:27:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jetman@mycbc.com) Received: (qmail 20922 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2004 15:30:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eagle) (141.155.145.91) by 0 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2004 15:30:20 -0000 Message-ID: <00c301c42dff$1fc2ff80$3200a8c0@cbcoffice> From: "The Jetman" To: "FreeBSD Net" References: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:18:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: [4.9-R]Can I Make My DSL Connect Go Faster ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:27:08 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Elischer" To: "Bruce M Simpson" Cc: "FreeBSD Net" ; "The Jetman" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 17:20 PM Subject: Re: [4.9-R]Can I Make My DSL Connect Go Faster ? > > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:29:58PM -0400, The Jetman wrote: > > > I'm just confused as to why I lose SO much going thru my FBSD box and > > > that's essence of my question. I can live w/ *some* overhead for the sake > > > of using FBSD, but this is ridiculous. TIA....Jet > > > > Are you using user space NAT? If so, this might account for some of the > > poor performance. Try reconfiguring your system to use IPFILTER, or > > consider updating to 5-CURRENT and trying pf(4). > > > > I would be surprised if that were the problem.. I've saturated ethernets > using natd.. > > Howver I agree that more info on the setup being used would be > beneficial.. > Julian: There isn't much that I can *think* to add. If knowing which LAN cards I use will help, they're the usu stuf, a dc (forget which chip) and a Realtek. I admit these aren't superstars, but I just slapped NAT box together from what was a simple workstation. The IPFW firewall script is the unmodified 'open' config, that is: 00050 99654 49243070 divert 8668 ip from any to any via dc0 00100 112 26392 allow ip from any to any via lo0 00200 0 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 00300 0 0 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any 65000 195218 98282299 allow ip from any to any 65535 0 0 allow ip from any to any Again, I can even live w/ some overhead due to sub-optimal hware. I only write bec the FBSD NAT speed is less than 30% of XP standalone speed ! Later....Jet =============== From the desk of Jethro Wright, III ================ + If it's there, and you can see it, it's real. + + If it's not there, and you can see it, it's virtual. + + If it's there, and you can't see it, it's transparent. + + If it's not there, and you can't see it, you erased it. + === jetman516 'at' hotmail.com ========================== Anon ===