From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Dec  8 11:29: 4 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from aurora.sol.net (aurora.sol.net [206.55.65.76])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E348915D2E; Wed,  8 Dec 1999 11:26:38 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jgreco@aurora.sol.net)
Received: (from jgreco@localhost)
	by aurora.sol.net (8.9.2/8.9.2/SNNS-1.02) id NAA80612;
	Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:26:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Message-Id: <199912081926.NAA80612@aurora.sol.net>
Subject: Re: Route table leaks
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991208135002.01d82140@staff.sentex.ca> from Mike Tancsa at "Dec 8, 1999  1:50: 2 pm"
To: mike@sentex.net (Mike Tancsa)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:26:16 -0600 (CST)
Cc: jdp@polstra.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> At 08:51 AM 12/8/99 -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
> >Most of which are routes pointing at the 3 private-net interfaces on the
> >machine.
> 
> The info was provided more as a comparison, that quantity of routes do not
> necessary mean leak ?  Or perhaps it does.  But after 90 days, you would
> think the problem would have been hit no ?

My _point_ was that this issue (or some variant) has been around for some
time.  I suspect it doesn't have to do with packet forwarding, but does
somehow have to do with machines that actually establish or receive TCP
connections.  Why this only affects certain types of systems, I don't know.

Certainly a large number of routes doesn't mean anything.  

However,

> vmstat -m | grep routetbl|grep K
     routetbl289178 40961K  40961K 40960K   435741    0     0 16,32,64,128,256
> netstat -rn | wc -l
      16

289178 blocks (and 40960K - that's 40MB) in use to support 16 routes (that
is 2.5MB of memory used per listed route) is a bit on the excessive side. 
Your example was more along the lines of 20MB to support 65000 routes, only 
a few hundred bytes per route, which is roughly on the order of what I'd
expect per route.

I'd think that inbound connections are less likely to be an issue than
outbound ones, as inbound connections get really heavily exercised on
things like web servers.  But that is off-the-top-of-my-head speculation,
and I've nothing to support that theory.

... Joe

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Greco - Systems Administrator			      jgreco@ns.sol.net
Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI			   414/342-4847


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message