Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:25:16 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org> To: Mark D <markd-freebsd-net@bushwire.net> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best way for an app to accept traffic on 30,000+ interfaces? Message-ID: <CAPBZQG2eZ3C68HaAPRUehBJ62L%2B87-LdLRrMRkzj=-09dHKrYA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130321005959.98706.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> References: <20130321005959.98706.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Mark D <markd-freebsd-net@bushwire.net>wrote: > (Hopefully this isn't too out-of-scope for this list..) > > I have an application in mind that I'd like to have accept/respond to > UDP queries sent to perhaps 30K contiguous IP addresses (most likely > IPV6 addresses because such ranges are easy to come by, but > conceptually ipv4 as well). > > This would all be on a small number of FBSD instances. > > Though it could be done, I don't really want to create 30K interfaces > and have the application bind 30K sockets as it's not clear if that > will scale if I try an address range that expands to, say, 1M IPs > wide. > > This address range would be internet-facing and responding to random > remote clients. > > My first thought is to use SOCK_RAW in much the same way that natd > does - at least to receive the traffic. > > Is that a sensible and viable approach or is there a better/easier > way? > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > How about firing up one of the firewall/pfil(9) consumers like (ipfw/pf) and adding rules to redirect traffic to a socket bound on loopback? -- Ermal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPBZQG2eZ3C68HaAPRUehBJ62L%2B87-LdLRrMRkzj=-09dHKrYA>