21 Jul
2015
21 Jul
'15
10:55 a.m.
What is the AMPRGW machine based on?
Assi
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+assi=kiloxray.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+assi=kiloxray.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
Brian Kantor
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:32 PM
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] Packet loss through UCSD?
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
> On 2015-07-20 17:41, Assi Friedman wrote:
>> and rather poor packet loss. Are there any issues or QoS policies
>> implemented on the amprnet router at UCSD?
There's no QoS policy in effect, but 'amprgw' is getting hammered at the
moment, with inbound packet drops peaking in the 25% range so performance is
going to be horrible.
It's hard to see precisely what's happening but it looks like multiple hosts
(possibly a botnet) are sweeping through the 44/8 range looking for
something.
There's not much we can do about this in the short term. Long term includes
a higher-performance machine with faster network interfaces.
- Brian
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
21 Jul
21 Jul
11:11 a.m.
New subject: Packet loss through UCSD?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 07:55:18AM -0700, Assi Friedman wrote:
What is the AMPRGW machine based on?
It's a Dell R200 with dual-core Xeon 3.2GHz processor. It has
two 1GbE Ethernet interfaces. Packet filtering and diversion are
done in-kernel by ipfw; encapsulation by a user-space process.
OS is FreeBSD.
- Brian
11:56 a.m.
New subject: Packet loss through UCSD?
If the system is FreeBSD why not use pf? It can handle a lot of traffic in my experience.
--
Will
On 7/21/15 10:11 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
It's a Dell R200 with dual-core Xeon 3.2GHz
processor. It has
two 1GbE Ethernet interfaces. Packet filtering and diversion are
done in-kernel by ipfw; encapsulation by a user-space process.
OS is FreeBSD.
12:22 p.m.
New subject: Packet loss through UCSD?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:56:38AM -0500, Will Gwin wrote:
If the system is FreeBSD why not use pf? It can handle
a lot of traffic in my experience.
The only comparison I've seen between 'pf' and 'ipfw' on FreeBSD was
one by Olivier Cochard-Labbé a few years ago; his results were that 'ipfw'
was able to handle a higher traffic load than 'pf'.
- Brian
3411
days inactive
3411
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Assi Friedman -
Brian Kantor -
Will Gwin