From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 26 11:48:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05994 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:48:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05932 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21977; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 18:47:21 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA06828; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:47:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980626204719.24634@follo.net> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:47:19 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Chris Dillon , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Will 8 Intel EtherExpress PRO 10/100's be a problem? References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Chris Dillon on Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 11:32:35PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Dillon wrote: > 3) If i ever end up using natd for all of this, would there be any > problems with it servicing those 7 networks (probably max 100 hosts per > network)? The only part that I know have problems with scaling is the link expiration structure. The other data structures are AFAIR all logarithmic. I have almost-finished patches for replacing this, I've just not felt like building the regression test framework for it (given that I only write code for this, but don't actively use natd/libalias for my personal workspace any more - I have customers that do, though). If you get problems, yell. It _will_ be solved. natd shall scale that far :-) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message