Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:53:01 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Bromirski?= <lbromirski@mr0vka.eu.org> To: Goran Gajic <ggajic@mail.sbb.co.yu> Cc: freebsd-net@www.freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter 4.1.6 won't build on FreeBSD5.3 amd64 (fwd) Message-ID: <422EC77D.4030602@mr0vka.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.62.0503090016030.92805@mail.sbb.co.yu> References: <Pine.BSF.4.62.0503082118370.17320@mail.sbb.co.yu> <422E240B.7010502@mr0vka.eu.org> <Pine.BSF.4.62.0503090016030.92805@mail.sbb.co.yu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Goran, > On my NPE-G1 running just IOS 12.3(12a) cpu utilization was something > like 70-90% but with IOS 12.3(11)T3 it is 20% since this one has NAT > inside CEF Yes, exactly. > However if you compare prices of PC hardware and Cisco hardware > decent PC hardware with FBSD seems like more acceptable solution to me. It may be, however if You would like to implement ATM, E1/E3 termination, voice termination and for example IP-to-IP gateway (voice crossconnect), 7200 would be the platform. I'm not advocacing for 7200, just placing the focus on the right platform. Actually, I'm FreeBSD fan and most of my network runs FreeBSD, I also did some presentations regarding FreeBSD, networking and quagga ;) > I was able to bring down NPE-G1 with running simple ping -l 1000000 > throu it and it has died at ~ 80k pps, while FBSD5.3 box was > able to route this without any problems. Through or to NPE-G1? If to, then control-plane is solution, if through, the figure closely resembles process-switching figures, so it should be investigated further, as it's definitely not the optimal performance. -- this space was intentionally left blank | Lukasz Bromirski you can insert your favourite quote here | lukasz:bromirski,net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?422EC77D.4030602>