Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:27:21 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Ze Claudio Pastore <zclaudio@bsd.com.br>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best option to process packet ACL Message-ID: <c7dabddd-7989-780e-7107-a7b8cfbf5639@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAEGk6G5vRK-OGV5xXVC%2BLKcC1aZJfS6d-QL_eB-CVSXoPOvEpg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEGk6G4aMU_qxDMb3tBqyLNmUNqd3%2BRjDRZ29wMx7pK_w=kkJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOtMX2h8tRtGeTLageLWiiXAi-Ap4Q8jqWFD2uiCtF1uCzSmOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEGk6G6uy0n8VEY1qtH8x%2B%2Bh7523YYyWLwNwrMq4O36s33o0-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOtMX2iKF2aaWF_PQESewMUFW4q=s3KC%2BJCEX7eakN3GKJ%2BEog@mail.gmail.com> <D638A558-15C0-4834-868C-D0912F225444@netgate.com> <CAEGk6G5vRK-OGV5xXVC%2BLKcC1aZJfS6d-QL_eB-CVSXoPOvEpg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29/04/2016 5:21 AM, Ze Claudio Pastore wrote: > 2016-04-28 14:46 GMT-03:00 Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com>: > >> If your application is already using DPDK then: >> >> 1) it’s not “mostly bypassing the kernel”, it *is* bypassing the kernel. >> >> 2) ACLs are already a thing in DPDK: >> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/packet_classif_access_ctrl.html >> >> 200Kpps is not a lot of load for even ‘pf’ on slow hardware. >> >>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> Even if your application is not a traditional firewall, using pf or ipfw >>> would save much development time compared to writing your own packet >>> filter. They can be configured to do things like redirect packets to >>> different ports. You can use that to offload packet filtering from your >>> application to the firewall, and open multiple sockets in your >> application >>> to receive prefiltered packets. >>> >>> Of course, pf/ipfw can't be used in combination with DPDK, as you >>> discovered. Doesn't DPDK provide access to each queue of a multiqueue >>> NIC? If so, you can create multiple filtering threads, and associate >> each >>> thread to a single queue of your NIC. >>> >>> Good luck, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. > ok, again, it's not a L3/L4 ACL, I am looking into L3/L4 information but on > a request basis not per packet, depending on other previous criteria I will > them split the processing, I am running a proxy so I am not looking to > replace my ACL needs by something else, only want to discuss how to better > process it, I have previous information from L7 affinity, headers, request > which helps me split some load, now I happen to need to filter it, it's not > a firewall, it's much like a squid based ACL need where you look for L3 > info on a different moment, ipfw/pf won't do it for me, ordinary firewall > fits somethwere else in the topology not in this application. ok so you have a bunch of options. If DPDK works for you, have you looked at netmap? If you are only interested in examining the first packet and then passing everything to a proxy, then use ipfw fwd, with a stateful rule. use a table with that rule if you have a number of filtering criteria. use multiple table and multiple fwd destinations. since we don't know what criteria, for how many rules it's hard to say.. you could feed everything into a netgraph module attached to your interface and write special purpose code. > > back on focus, I need to understand how to better split this load among > IDLE CPUs > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c7dabddd-7989-780e-7107-a7b8cfbf5639>