From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 20 22:45:44 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805FA16A41A for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:45:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from netslists@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0B313C48A for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:45:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from netslists@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so574178nfb for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.23.17 with SMTP id 17mr1232211fgw.1190280571632; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.9.8? ( [91.135.49.10]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d23sm3072237nfh.2007.09.20.02.29.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46F23D74.9000701@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:29:24 +0200 From: Sten Daniel Soersdal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Bertrand References: <46F1AC0B.9040109@ibctech.ca> <46F1BDE1.8090102@gmail.com> <46F1F136.3010203@ibctech.ca> In-Reply-To: <46F1F136.3010203@ibctech.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mattr@eagle.ca, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quagga as border router X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:45:44 -0000 Steve Bertrand wrote: > Can you please explain in a technical way how polling can benefit me > here in a dual-stacked situation? In all honesty, the last few months, > I've been seeing many mails to the lists saying 'polling' has caused > issues. (I'm not arguing, I'm just looking for reason ;) I'm not saying you should use polling. I'm saying that not using polling makes for more context switches. 64bit registers are twice as large as 32bit registers. There will be a bigger penalty on stack/memory usage and therefore slower transitions from one context to another (read: handling a packet). This might be mitigated by having a very large cpu cache. It may or may not make much of a difference considering stacks are aligned, i was just theorizing. >> But that could imply that you are going to do attempt active load >> balancing on those two peer links. If so, you should be aware that such >> load balancing must be done manually by some other method (pf? ng?) > > No plan on load balancing. It's all based on 100% failover. > > Thank you for the input, so if I ever do need to do load balancing, it > has been already planned in a manual configuration as you stated, > however via BGP. I'll break up my aggregate as an absolute LAST resort. > (Essentially, in regards to v4, I will NOT advertise anything smaller > than my allocated block...period). Just curious: Is there a reason you can't advertise your entire allocated block and receive two full feeds? -- Sten Daniel Soersdal