Re: netmap-ipfw on em0 em1

2014-11-06 Thread Luigi Rizzo
The code on code.google.com/p/netmap-ipfw/ works well for me on physical interfaces. For using the nics many of your examples show that you are not using the various programs correctly. There is clearly a mismatch between what this code does and your expectations, and there isn't much i can do to

[Bug 194872] [netmap] documentation for bridge/pkt-gen doesn't mention the updated interface format (netmap:X, vale:X) nor how to configure a specific ring

2014-11-06 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194872 Adrian Chadd changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org -- You are

Re: netmap-ipfw on em0 em1

2014-11-06 Thread Evandro Nunes
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Evandro Nunes wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Patrick Tracanelli < > eks...@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: > >> Hey, what you are doing wrong is much more simple than you expect. >> >> > # ./kipfw em1 em2 > & /tmp/kipfw.log & >> > [1] 66583 >> >> Just run .

Re: Static routes issue

2014-11-06 Thread John-Mark Gurney
"Dante F. B. Col" wrote this message on Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 19:22 -0200: > I'm trying to setup some static routes on a freebsd box for some public > addresses , the machine has two ethernet cards *em0 *and *em1 ***, *em0* > is attached to a Cisco internet router and *em1* is connected to a > s

Static routes issue

2014-11-06 Thread Dante F. B. Colò
Hello everyone I'm trying to setup some static routes on a freebsd box for some public addresses , the machine has two ethernet cards *em0 *and *em1 ***, *em0* is attached to a Cisco internet router and *em1* is connected to a switch, both interfaces have public addresses of the same range ,

[Bug 164475] [gre] gre misses RUNNING flag after a reboot

2014-11-06 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=164475 Andrey V. Elsukov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@freebsd.org Ass

Re: IPSEC in GENERIC [was: Re: netmap in GENERIC, by default, on HEAD]

2014-11-06 Thread Olivier Cochard-Labbé
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > > => This permit me to obtain the maximum PPS forwarded by the server. >> > May be off-topic: How much PPS and on which hardware? > It seems I'm not clear: My question is just "What is the correct methodology for benching IPSec performance

Re: IPSEC in GENERIC [was: Re: netmap in GENERIC, by default, on HEAD]

2014-11-06 Thread Hooman Fazaeli
On 11/6/2014 1:30 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: How to correctly bench IPSec performance ? For benching forwarding performance I generate minimum-size packet (2000 flows: 100 different source IP * 20 different destination IP) like with this netmap's pkt-gen example: pkt-gen -i ix0 -f tx -n 10

Re: IPSEC in GENERIC [was: Re: netmap in GENERIC, by default, on HEAD]

2014-11-06 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On 06 Nov 2014, at 01:10 , George Neville-Neil wrote: > On 5 Nov 2014, at 9:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > >> On 05.11.2014 19:39, George Neville-Neil wrote: >>> Howdy, >>> >>> Last night (Pacific Time) I committed a change so that GENERIC, on HEAD has >>> the netmap >>> device enabled.

Re: IPSEC in GENERIC [was: Re: netmap in GENERIC, by default, on HEAD]

2014-11-06 Thread Olivier Cochard-Labbé
How to correctly bench IPSec performance ? For benching forwarding performance I generate minimum-size packet (2000 flows: 100 different source IP * 20 different destination IP) like with this netmap's pkt-gen example: pkt-gen -i ix0 -f tx -n 10 -l 60 -d 9.1.1.1:2000-9.1.1.100 -s 8.1.1.1:2