Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:39:39 +0400 From: Peter Andreev <andreev.peter@gmail.com> To: freebsd <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Any arp table size limitations? Message-ID: <CAE_wXn3xK_=%2BMcySf%2BugOg79rFgfOiUsFp57Vhz4HqianNbzYA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44bo7t4cyf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <CAE_wXn3QohbR_TH_Gd89Vtp2TRHn89FabW3mYUTngG912=tEJg@mail.gmail.com> <44bo7t4cyf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you Lowell, Yes, that's an Internet exchange point. We have done a similar test and didn't found any problems, I asked on maillist just to be sure. 2013/5/30 Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> > 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. > -- AP
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAE_wXn3xK_=%2BMcySf%2BugOg79rFgfOiUsFp57Vhz4HqianNbzYA>