From owner-freebsd-isp Fri May 21 5:15:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from loviatar.webcom.com (loviatar.webcom.com [209.1.28.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8726A14FFA for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 05:15:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from graeme@echidna.com) Received: from kigal.webcom.com (kigal.webcom.com [209.1.28.57]) by loviatar.webcom.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id FAA28765; Fri, 21 May 1999 05:14:56 -0700 Received: from [204.143.69.17] by inanna.webcom.com (WebCom SMTP 1.2.1) with SMTP id 34286020; Fri May 21 05:11 PDT 1999 Message-Id: <37457861.278E@echidna.com> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:14:41 -0700 From: Graeme Tait Organization: Echidna X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Gifford Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ifconfig_if0_alias? References: <19990521043504.2D45915316@hub.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Aaron Gifford wrote: > Just to be sure I wasn't wasting my time adding static loopback > routes for every IP alias, I did a quick ping test: > > PINGing a local IP alias that does NOT have a loopback route: > > --- 10.200.55.242 ping statistics --- > 1000 packets transmitted, 1000 packets received, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.119/0.136/0.217/0.015 ms > > PINGing a local IP alias that DOES have a loopback route: > > --- 10.200.55.243 ping statistics --- > 1000 packets transmitted, 1000 packets received, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.093/0.106/0.305/0.015 ms > > It looks like the loopback route shaves off .030 ms on average > at least in this case processing pings. I created some IP aliases per http://www.cypher.net/~black/ipalias.html ifconfig fxp0 inet xxx.xxx.xxx.100 netmask 255.255.255.255 alias ifconfig fxp0 inet xxx.xxx.xxx.101 netmask 255.255.255.255 alias Explicitly adding routes (which the above reference says is unnecessary with netmask 255.255.255.255) with route add xxx.xxx.xxx.100 127.0.0.1 route add xxx.xxx.xxx.101 127.0.0.1 made no difference whatever to the ping times to those IP's on the local system (2.2.7S/CAM), which was otherwise idle. Does adding a loopback route for your .242 IP reduce its ping time? Was your system under load, and the load consistent? -- Graeme Tait - Echidna To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message