From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 9 09:53:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@www.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4AD16A4CE for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:53:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from r2d2.bromirski.net (r2d2.bromirski.net [217.153.57.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949C343D46 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:53:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lbromirski@mr0vka.eu.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (r2d2.bromirski.net [217.153.57.194]) by r2d2.bromirski.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB551089C8; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:53:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <422EC77D.4030602@mr0vka.eu.org> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:53:01 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Bromirski?= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.1 (Windows/20050302) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Goran Gajic References: <422E240B.7010502@mr0vka.eu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@www.freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter 4.1.6 won't build on FreeBSD5.3 amd64 (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:53:04 -0000 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