Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 20:39:22 +0300 From: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass@gmx.com> To: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> Cc: Kevin Wilcox <kevin.wilcox@gmail.com>, Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, geoff@apro.com.au Subject: Re: Can I bridge the same subnet across a VPN? Message-ID: <4DC2E0CA.9020902@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTintKC1TgFmrjaFgSMtsd7DCcz1Fzg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201105040519.56695.geoff@apro.com.au> <BANLkTimCMBvCQqOE=8Xfd9_ZF-aQeWBGEA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=BfGDvym1GyBmvooMn1dbhT4UcTA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTintKC1TgFmrjaFgSMtsd7DCcz1Fzg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/5/2011 12:24 AM, David Brodbeck wrote: > The problem I've always found with bridged solutions is they don't > cope well under heavy traffic loads when the VPN link is slower than > the LANs they're bridging between. And the VPN link is usually slower > if it's over a WAN. The link tends to get saturated. There is no inbuilt reason why a L2 VPN is more easily saturated than a L3 VPN. After all protocols doing bulk transfers should - and mostly - use TCP which autotunes the rate of sent packets. And TCP should be able to saturate the lower-bandwidth link of the whole path. That's normal and desirable. Some care must be taken with the broadcast and multicast traffic which goes through the L2 VPN. Just my 2 cents, Nikos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DC2E0CA.9020902>