Messages in this thread | | | From | Steve Snyder <> | Subject | Re: Can I reduce CPU use of conntrack/masq? | Date | Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:51:52 -0500 |
| |
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/
| |