ipfw2 for dragonflybsd

[bycn82]

*Anyone want to try this ipfw2?*


*https://github.com/bycn82/dfly/commits/master
<https://github.com/bycn82/dfly/commits/master>*



On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, bycn82 <bycn82 at gmail.com> wrote:

> *thanks*
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You could use tools/tools/netrate/accept_connect/kq_accept_server and
>> kq_connect_client.  Make sure you have following settings on both end:
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.last=40000
>> route change -net YOUR_TEST_SUBNET -msl 10
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM, bycn82 <bycn82 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "lockless state" was there, but any recommendation about the testing in
>> > order to know the performance different?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:39 PM, bycn82 <bycn82 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > It will be good to have a try on this "lock-less NAT" in order to
>> know
>> >> > the
>> >> > performance. but IMHO, I think the performance will not be good
>> >> > especially
>> >> > when the machines has lots of CPU.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Number of CPUs does not matter that much, since its bwteen at most two
>> >> CPUs (two netisrs).\
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >> sephe
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyway , next will be "lockless" for "keep-state". maybe this
>> weekend :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Sepherosa Ziehau <
>> sepherosa at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Matthew Dillon
>> >> >> <dillon at apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >     On how to make NAT work, what I did in PF was this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >     (a) When the port is not locked to a particular number, I
>> simply
>> >> >> > iterate
>> >> >> >         ports until the toepliz hash for the translated
>> address/port
>> >> >> > pair
>> >> >> >         winds up on the same cpu as the toeplez hash of the
>> original.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >         This way both sides of the NAT conversation wind up on the
>> >> >> > same
>> >> >> > cpu
>> >> >> >         and no locking is required.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >     (b) If the translated port is locked (which is a feature that
>> PF
>> >> >> > has,
>> >> >> >         for example), it may not be possible to match up the
>> toeplez
>> >> >> > hash.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >         In this situation the state goes into a global table with
>> a
>> >> >> > global
>> >> >> >         lock, and the state is individually locked by the filter.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In addition to what Matt has mentioned, I think lockless NAT could
>> be
>> >> >> implemented in the following way:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - On output path install state for the current netisr.  And rehash
>> the
>> >> >> packet then send to the target netisr, and install 'sibling state'
>> in
>> >> >> the target netisr; do the real output there.
>> >> >> - Same applies to the input path; but do the protocol input in the
>> >> >> target netisr.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, the result may not be better than or as good as
>> >> >> per-cpu+global lock Matt implemented for the PF, since my way
>> requires
>> >> >> additional dispatch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best Regards,
>> >> >> sephe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Tomorrow Will Never Die
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Tomorrow Will Never Die
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tomorrow Will Never Die
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20141211/b06542be/attachment-0003.htm>