To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Can I reduce CPU use of conntrack/masq?
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:36:38 -0800
Organization: OSDL
Message-ID: <20051102133638.77852188@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <200511021450.47657.R00020C@freescale.com>
	<69304d110511021223m59716878qc247ab96d8c1e24e@mail.gmail.com>
	<200511021551.52823.R00020C@freescale.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:36:38 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1228
Lines: 30

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:51:52 -0500
Steve Snyder <R00020C@freescale.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 November 2005 15:23, Antonio Vargas wrote:
> > On 11/2/05, Steve Snyder <R00020C@freescale.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I wonder if I can improve conntrack/masq performance at the expense of
> > > flexibility.  This will be a closed system, with simple and static
> > > routing.  Are there any trade-offs I can make to sacrifice unneeded
> > > flexibility in routing for reduced CPU utilization in conntrack/masq?
> > 
> > Hmmm... totally untested and don't know the details of UWB but...
> > can't you simply ether-bridge the interfaces instead of masquerading?
> > It should need less CPU
> 
> Hmm...  I'm not familiar with ether-bridge, and Google turns up only
> commercial products and BSD references.

It in the kernel already! Look at 
	http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/Bridge
For more info

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/