Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 05 May 2011 20:39:22 +0300
From:      Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass@gmx.com>
To:        David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us>
Cc:        Kevin Wilcox <kevin.wilcox@gmail.com>, Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, geoff@apro.com.au
Subject:   Re: Can I bridge the same subnet across a VPN?
Message-ID:  <4DC2E0CA.9020902@gmx.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTintKC1TgFmrjaFgSMtsd7DCcz1Fzg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <201105040519.56695.geoff@apro.com.au>	<BANLkTimCMBvCQqOE=8Xfd9_ZF-aQeWBGEA@mail.gmail.com>	<BANLkTi=BfGDvym1GyBmvooMn1dbhT4UcTA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTintKC1TgFmrjaFgSMtsd7DCcz1Fzg@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 5/5/2011 12:24 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:
> The problem I've always found with bridged solutions is they don't
> cope well under heavy traffic loads when the VPN link is slower than
> the LANs they're bridging between.  And the VPN link is usually slower
> if it's over a WAN.  The link tends to get saturated.

There is no inbuilt reason why a L2 VPN is more easily saturated
than a L3 VPN.

After all protocols doing bulk transfers should - and mostly - use
TCP which autotunes the rate of sent packets. And TCP should be
able to saturate the lower-bandwidth link of the whole path. That's
normal and desirable.

Some care must be taken with the broadcast and multicast traffic
which goes through the L2 VPN.

Just my 2 cents, Nikos



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DC2E0CA.9020902>