From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 27 21:58:16 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7541065675; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:58:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1-6.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA518FC1C; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBRLwDGb004986; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:58:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <4EFA3F6F.9040404@sentex.net> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:58:07 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" References: <1498545030.20111227015431@nitronet.pl> <4EF9ADBC.8090402@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EF9ADBC.8090402@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12 Cc: Pawel Tyll , freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Firewall Profiling. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:58:16 -0000 On 12/27/2011 6:36 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> Is IPFW efficient enough to firewall 2x10GE (in+out) interfaces >> without much latency increase, when running on modern hardware >> with Intel NICs? Majority of processing tasks would probably be setfib >> according to matches in tables. > IPFW seems to add more or less constant overhead per rule. In our setup, > ~20 rules increase load by 100% (one core). We are able to reach 10GE > (1.1mpps) on some routers with most packets travelling 8-10 ipfw rules. > However, even with ipfw add 1 allow ip from any to any > 1.1 mpps routing utilizes E5645 by more that 80%. (with IGP routes in > rtable only). YMMV, but 2x10G is too much at the moment even without ipfw. Dont some of the modern 10G adapters support filtering in the card itself ? eg cxgbe. ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/