Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:45:27 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "Jacobs, Brian" <Brian.Jacobs@lodgenet.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GRE tunnel limitations Message-ID: <4A5F5927.3080904@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <126E45722B459248997856ECB72DEB7701285DC0@host.lodgenet.com> References: <126E45722B459248997856ECB72DEB7701285DC0@host.lodgenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jacobs, Brian wrote: > Does anyone have some realistic data on the number of GRE/ipip tunnels > FreeBSD 7.x can reasonably terminate? Assume no IPsec, just standard > encapsulation. I have an ad-hoc need to terminate about 1,4000 static > GRE tunnels (as Cisco 7206's are backordered until September). J > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > /bmj > > _______________________________________________ > 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" The limitation would be that there is an interface for reach one and the interface 'interface' uses a linked list. it might work but there would probably be scaling issues. I've often thought that what we need is a way to do "bulk encapsulatin interfaces" where there is not an "interface" assigned to each destination. (at least not one that shows up in 'ifconfig'). How will you want to decide which gre interface to use for a given packet? is it just a standard routing decision based on the remote address?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A5F5927.3080904>