Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Also, there is a more basic problem. The bridge program requires physical interfaces to be specified with the "netmap:" prefix. For example: # ./bridge netmap:ix0 netmap:em2# OK # ./bridge ix0 em2 # WRONG 2017-06-16 14:47 GMT+02:00 Vincenzo Maffione

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Some comments inline: 2017-06-16 14:13 GMT+02:00 Jordan Caraballo : > Hi guys, > > We tried multiple attempts to implement netmap vale-ctl and bridge in > chelsio vcxl* interfaces. The most interesting attempts, are mentioned > below. > > First Attempt: Ran "./bridge

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Hi guys, We tried multiple attempts to implement netmap vale-ctl and bridge in chelsio vcxl* interfaces. The most interesting attempts, are mentioned below. First Attempt: Ran "./bridge vcxl0 vcxl1"; but it would complain about having a 0 burst size. Added "-b 1024" to the command as recommended

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

On 06/14/2017 10:42, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Navdeep Parhar > wrote: I think I fixed this a long time back. Have you tried recently? We moved the netmap functionality to the vcxl interfaces and it

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Responding to the thread as a whole: another alternative is the FLOWTABLE kernel option. I added route and link-layer caching for endpoints (TCP and UDP), which makes the FLOWTABLE option less useful (or undesirable) there, but FLOWTABLE adds route caching for packet forwarding as well. I’d

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Do you mean it works with one pkt-gen but panics when the second one is started? On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: >> >> >> I think I fixed this a long time back. Have

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote: > > I think I fixed this a long time back. Have you tried recently? We > moved the netmap functionality to the vcxl interfaces and it should > just work. > > ​ It stills panic with an -head build today.

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:48 PM, John Jasen wrote: > >> >> b) On the negative side, between the various releases, netmap appeared >> to be unstable with the Chelsio cards -- sometimes

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 9:48 AM, John Jasen wrote: > > Our goal was to test whether or not FreeBSD currently is viable, as the > operating system platform for high speed routers and firewalls, in the > 40 to 100 GbE range. We recently showed IPsec running at 36.32Gbps (8

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Il 14 giu 2017 5:21 PM, "Olivier Cochard-Labbé" ha scritto: On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:48 PM, John Jasen wrote: > > b) On the negative side, between the various releases, netmap appeared > to be unstable with the Chelsio cards -- sometimes supported,

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

On 6/14/2017 10:48 AM, John Jasen wrote: > Our goal was to test whether or not FreeBSD currently is viable, as the > operating system platform for high speed routers and firewalls, in the > 40 to 100 GbE range. > > In our investigations, we tested 10.3, 11.0/-STABLE, -CURRENT, and a USB > stick

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:48 PM, John Jasen wrote: > > b) On the negative side, between the various releases, netmap appeared > to be unstable with the Chelsio cards -- sometimes supported, sometimes > broken. Also, we're still trying to figure out netmap utilities, such as >

Re: state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Hi, To test netmap raw forwarding performance using just one core, use the bridge program between two netmap supported NICs, like ix or ixl # ./bridge ix0 ix1 You could implement your own multicore software router by extending the bridge example to implement the protocols you need. Vale-ctl

state of packet forwarding in FreeBSD?

Our goal was to test whether or not FreeBSD currently is viable, as the operating system platform for high speed routers and firewalls, in the 40 to 100 GbE range. In our investigations, we tested 10.3, 11.0/-STABLE, -CURRENT, and a USB stick from BSDRP using the FreeBSD routing improvements