From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jun 1 17:44:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail-01.cdsnet.net (mail-01.cdsnet.net [206.107.16.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 408B114E63 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mrcpu@internetcds.com) Received: (qmail 28890 invoked from network); 2 Jun 1999 00:41:21 -0000 Received: from schizo.cdsnet.net (204.118.244.32) by mail.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 2 Jun 1999 00:41:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:41:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Jaye Mathisen X-Sender: mrcpu@schizo.cdsnet.net To: Lowell Gilbert Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a Dedicated Router In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 1 Jun 1999, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Doug White writes: > > > I wouldn't suggest it for a core router, but for a small office router on > > up it should be OK. > > Good summary of the performance issues. In my own opinion, I don't > think anything that does its forwarding in software is fast enough for > the Internet core. But then again, I work on stuff that *is* meant > for the core. > Well, like anything, it all depends on your definition of core/load, but FreeBSD using ET's T1 cards, and 4 portt ethernet cards from Znyx is handling significantly higher than "small office router" loads, trivially, with 3-4% CPU usage, including firewalling. I'm only using P6-200's on supermicro MB's, but I see no reason to believe that this won't scale to 12 T1's and 4-8 ethernet ports easily. PCI bandwidth may be an issue, but that's all I can think of. (Your other issues of compliancy are valid, but I suspect non-issues in the current world, generally speaking). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message