From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 7 08:09:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0246E9B0 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:09:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lars@netapp.com) Received: from mx1.netapp.com (mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF42B7DB for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:09:02 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,621,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="239872721" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx1-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2013 00:09:02 -0800 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r17891iY009241; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:09:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:09:01 -0800 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Matthew Luckie Subject: Re: high cpu usage on natd / dhcpd Thread-Topic: high cpu usage on natd / dhcpd Thread-Index: AQHN/49K3QG1cuBZpEGa6wjl1WYXnJhkDzQAgAqMkAA= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:08:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <510A87B8.7000705@luckie.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <510A87B8.7000705@luckie.org.nz> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <02EEE0B2A5AC25418D7123D96F4D80C5@tahoe.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 07 Feb 2013 08:09:03 -0000 On Jan 31, 2013, at 16:03, Matthew Luckie wrote: >=20 > 00510 allow ip from me to not me out via em1 > 00550 divert 8668 ip from any to any via em1 >=20 > Rule 510 fixes it. Yep, it does. Can I ask someone to commit this to rc.firewall? (And I wonder if the rules for the ipfw kernel firewall need a similar addi= tion, because the system locks up under heavy network load if I use that in= stead of natd.) Lars