Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 11 May 2007 14:37:43 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Erik Norgaard <norgaard@locolomo.org>
To:        Todor Dragnev <todor.dragnev@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Large scale NAT
Message-ID:  <20070511143235.Y6855@strange.locolomo.org>
In-Reply-To: <f72a639a0705110442p757b683fj545c75f4cc71155e@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <f72a639a0705110442p757b683fj545c75f4cc71155e@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Todor Dragnev wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> I have about 4000 users behind NAT. I use ipnat(ipf) on single freebsd box(
> v6.2) to translate RFC1918 ip addresses to real one.
>
> All works fine, but my CPU usage is very high and router starts to drop
> packets and sometimes freeze.
> I fix freezes problem with POLLING but CPU usage is still very high.
>
> Throughput on one interface is about 200Mbit/s, but next month I will need
> more speed to pass through this box and I looking  for better solution
>
> What is the throughput limit what I can expect from FreeBSD in this
> situation?
>
> Are someone in the list have experience with large NAT tables?
> It is time to switch to Cisco or something similar - any suggestions ?

There is a comparison of ip-filter and packet filter here

http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf-paper.html

Rather old now, but as I understand, pf does a better job when tables grow 
large when filtering is stateful.

Cheers, Erik




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070511143235.Y6855>