From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 12 23:39:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E75D63EA for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-x231.google.com (mail-oa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1EF71AE9 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id o6so7754638oag.36 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:39:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=mtbovXn2K123zUJlfwuDUNaWCUumZc5WjFOJ0/oYohU=; b=EOGUGv2ZWoLORY4UdzLGYak8O0vRlpZEMMfbsA8VJU10yP9X6rZoygvNZyifH39dXt /5tZjPWLXOr/5qTLLNwFX0efNGpY5vHo+Z+pC1J+CxoPQB7DofFZM0ugY4wVWsUx2aOO E8lchzNUOBRK9Yu0pBNWyZjAdmYi3/FiHWfUwi8lPlSiAnPEufDZyEnfVwu9gB3mtTjU WveGEZvT4/YqNA/VDhF/4GdPtQOMkKtXjCdH5YTxF7HbdevSPBeZ9AiLnwsKbkbEBzvw pl+fRpXVIAHG45LfFT0U+CCJhApSTa1V+xexBlfRMfqP5Frhr92JAvlDhO0FbOv83vpo 5qTw== X-Received: by 10.182.125.161 with SMTP id mr1mr119944obb.47.1397345951047; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:39:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.232.72 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 16:38:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5347AEAA.9090801@smartspb.net> References: <5347AEAA.9090801@smartspb.net> From: Raimundo Santos Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:38:50 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: dummynet/ipfw high load? To: Dennis Yusupoff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:39:12 -0000 On 11 April 2014 05:58, Dennis Yusupoff wrote: > NAT realized with pf nat, shaping with ipfw dummynet and traffic > accounting with ng_netflow via ipfw ng_tee. > Good time, Dennis. May I ask how much clients do you nat, shape and account? Why you do that with both engines (pf + ipfw)? Why not ipfw only with in-kernel NAT? Best regards, Raimundo