Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:51:20 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Peter Andreev <andreev.peter@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Any arp table size limitations? Message-ID: <44bo7t4cyf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAE_wXn3QohbR_TH_Gd89Vtp2TRHn89FabW3mYUTngG912=tEJg@mail.gmail.com> (Peter Andreev's message of "Tue, 28 May 2013 12:26:06 %2B0400") References: <CAE_wXn3QohbR_TH_Gd89Vtp2TRHn89FabW3mYUTngG912=tEJg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Andreev <andreev.peter@gmail.com> writes: > We are connecting to an IXP, they have tested our FreeBSD 9.1 server and > said we can store only about 600 MACs simultaneously. So I'd like to ask if > there is any arp table size limitations and if so, how we can increase the > limit? I looked at the code and there don't seem to be any arbitrary limits. The code isn't optimized for really large numbers of entries, but 600 isn't what I'd consider large in this context. I ran a simple shell script and had no problems entering many thousands of static ARP entries, so my interpretation from reading the code isn't horribly wrong. I think you need to find out what kind of problems they ran into at 600 entries. As a (maybe-irrelevant) side point, I don't know what you mean by IXP, since in my background the term means "Internet eXchange Point," and isn't likely to get anywhere close to 600 ARP entries on a single subnet.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44bo7t4cyf.fsf>