lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Can I reduce CPU use of conntrack/masq?
Date
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.

Pointer to info, please?

Thanks.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-02 21:54    [W:0.046 / U:2.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site