From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 19 00:08:22 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C5816A41F
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:08:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca)
Received: from ox.eicat.ca (ox.eicat.ca [66.96.30.35])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CAC343D53
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:08:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca)
Received: by ox.eicat.ca (Postfix, from userid 66)
	id EAB2DF5BB; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by canoe.dclg.ca (Postfix, from userid 101)
	id 9E6B81A08C5; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Gilbert <dgilbert@dclg.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17237.36468.589364.753870@canoe.dclg.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:08:20 -0400
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Mutlicast interface limit.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:08:22 -0000

My reading of the the code in ip_mroute.h seems to imply that FreeBSD
carries a maximum of 32 multicast interfaces by default.  Is the
correct?  MAXVIFS?

If I'm reading it correctly, it shouldn't be rocket science to extend
this limit to 64 (u_int64_t).  Will making it larger break some large
number of things, or are those macros strictly used?

In my case, with an OSPF router with potentially 100's of interfaces
(tunnels), 32 and 64 are fairly low limits.

Dave.

-- 
============================================================================
|David Gilbert, Independent Contractor.       | Two things can only be     |
|Mail:       dave@daveg.ca                    |  equal if and only if they |
|http://daveg.ca                              |   are precisely opposite.  |
=========================================================GLO================