Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:57:06 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org> To: Fleuriot Damien <ml@my.gd> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best way for an app to accept traffic on 30,000+ interfaces? Message-ID: <CAPBZQG2JW=MA%2BymfWMV07PQshqC2G0zu5mhBe9wDT4bUnxbZfg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <96327F03-86EC-4EE6-9679-F66A960BDDB4@my.gd> References: <20130321005959.98706.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> <CAPBZQG2eZ3C68HaAPRUehBJ62L%2B87-LdLRrMRkzj=-09dHKrYA@mail.gmail.com> <96327F03-86EC-4EE6-9679-F66A960BDDB4@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Fleuriot Damien <ml@my.gd> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Mark D <markd-freebsd-net@bushwire.net > >wrote: > > > >> (Hopefully this isn't too out-of-scope for this list..) > >> > >> I have an application in mind that I'd like to have accept/respond to > >> UDP queries sent to perhaps 30K contiguous IP addresses (most likely > >> IPV6 addresses because such ranges are easy to come by, but > >> conceptually ipv4 as well). > >> > >> This would all be on a small number of FBSD instances. > >> > >> Though it could be done, I don't really want to create 30K interfaces > >> and have the application bind 30K sockets as it's not clear if that > >> will scale if I try an address range that expands to, say, 1M IPs > >> wide. > >> > >> This address range would be internet-facing and responding to random > >> remote clients. > >> > >> My first thought is to use SOCK_RAW in much the same way that natd > >> does - at least to receive the traffic. > >> > >> Is that a sensible and viable approach or is there a better/easier > >> way? > >> > >> > >> Mark. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >> > > > > > > How about firing up one of the firewall/pfil(9) consumers like (ipfw/pf= ) > > and adding rules to redirect traffic to a socket bound on loopback? > > > > -- > > Ermal > > > I fail to see how that's different from what I suggested with PF's rdr > rule ? > > I never saw the e-mail in this thread! --=20 Ermal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPBZQG2JW=MA%2BymfWMV07PQshqC2G0zu5mhBe9wDT4bUnxbZfg>