Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:03:51 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: veedee@c7.campus.utcluj.ro Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Large scale NAT - problem resolved Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0401281301260.6703-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040128204603.GA19311@c7.campus.utcluj.ro>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 veedee@c7.campus.utcluj.ro wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:15:56AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Andriy Korud wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > At last I've managed to build stable NAT on FreeBSD box for 34Mbit link and > > > > ~2000 clients (cable modem network). > > > > At full speed (34Mbit) CPU usage is 0% and system load is 0.0 :-) > > > > > > > > > > It'd be really interesting to see how natd would handle such a load.... > > > > > You must be kidding. ;) > > Agreed. NATd "crashes" with 400 clients on AMD Athlon 900Mhz. :( ipnat > works fine. > > This raises a question... is there any point in still having natd? (don't > throw rocks at me please, I'm just asking). Or maybe it's still being used > for servers with less clients to nat? Well for people using ipfw.. if_nat requires ipfilter If it 'crashes' that sugests that a bug exists.. anyone know what 'crashes' means? gets slow? if so then probably using a hash table somehwere would fix it..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0401281301260.6703-100000>