From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 1 08:16:56 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A4A225 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:16:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C872135 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:16:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id r718Gq4n025931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:16:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:16:54 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz To: Sergey Kandaurov Subject: Re: Stacking lots of IP's on a single box - any 'gotchas'? Message-ID: <35E6DA11BCAC68653E699E83@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <34C668004A0D654205D0516B@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:16:56 -0000 --On 31 July 2013 23:47 +0400 Sergey Kandaurov wrote: >> But is there any hard limit we're likely to encounter putting so many >> IP's on a single machine? - Are there any limits that would likely need >> tuning to support that many IP's? >> > > Unlikely, besides those unrelated things like ntpd+select() et.al. As far as I know they already split the software handling the IP's between multiple instances (some kind of VPN end points outward facing) - so as long as we say, avoid anything that's going to try and 'select' on all of them - and keep an eye on other things (like mbufs/clusters/fd's etc.) this should work... Thanks for the replies... -Kp