Re: Can I reduce CPU use of conntrack/masq?

[Steve Snyder]

On Wednesday 02 November 2005 15:23, Antonio Vargas wrote:
> On 11/2/05, Steve Snyder <R00020C@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/