From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 25 14:56:48 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 970FC16A4D1; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:56:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (duey.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638EA43D1F; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:56:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83281FE4A; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:56:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (duey.wolves.k12.mo.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 09532-03; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:56:46 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix, from userid 1001) id F26491FE43; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C6E1A91F; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:56:45 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon To: Aloha Guy In-Reply-To: <20040225221151.91486.qmail@web41306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040225165031.N10233@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us> References: <20040225221151.91486.qmail@web41306.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at wolves.k12.mo.us cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD box as router adding latency 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: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:56:48 -0000 On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Aloha Guy wrote: > Any ideas what is causing this? Is it the xl0 driver because I've > used FreeBSD machines as ethernet routers before with a similar > setup except there was no NAT involved and used the fxp drivers and > it never had this problem. Thanks for your help in advance! Additional delay while adding a hop is to be expected, no matter how fast your network or router is. You only added about 1ms on average, which is about right. The lost packet in the second traceroute might be due to a full/half-duplex mismatch between one of the NICs and the switch. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us FreeBSD: The fastest, most open, and most stable OS on the planet - Available for IA32, IA64, AMD64, PC98, Alpha, and UltraSPARC architectures - PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, and S/390 under development - http://www.freebsd.org Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?