From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 12 15:07:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC8E16A4CF for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h2.liquidneon.com (h2.liquidneon.com [216.38.206.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B9F43D4C for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from so14k@so14k.com) Received: (qmail 57745 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2004 22:07:43 -0000 Received: from c-24-8-51-173.client.comcast.net (HELO hole.house.so14k.com) (brad@liquidneon.com@24.8.51.173) by h2.liquidneon.com with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 22:07:43 -0000 From: Brad Davis To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:07:13 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <407AA4C5.50405@wintek.com> In-Reply-To: <407AA4C5.50405@wintek.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200404121607.13927.so14k@so14k.com> Subject: Re: NAT and traffic shaping X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:07:44 -0000 On Monday 12 April 2004 8:16 am, Richard J Kuhns wrote: > We have a customer (an apartment complex) who wants us to deploy a > FreeBSD box that will handle NAT for 400 to 600 machines (so figure > multiple connections per machine) and that can handle a steady 12 to 15 > Mb of ethernet traffic, both directions. I'm sure we'll also want to do > some traffic shaping. Would anyone care to offer > suggestions/recommendations/horror stories about implementing this? > Specifically, how hefty a box should we use (RAM/CPU), and which version > of FreeBSD? We're mostly running 4.9-stable right now and it's been very > reliable. I've installed 5.2.1 on a couple of boxes with no major > problems, but they also haven't been heavily loaded. Personally I'd go with 5.2.1 or better to get PF & AltQ after the merge from OpenBSD... although, I'm not sure when exactly AltQ was merged... Regards, Brad Davis