Hi,
Thanks for your clarification. We've also conducted some tests with
bridging firewall functionality, and we're very pleased with nf-hipac's
performance! Results below.
In the measurements, tests were run through a bridging Linux firewall,
with a netperf UDP stream of 1450 byte packets (launched from a different
computer connected with gigabit ethernet), with a varying amount of
filtering rules checks for each packet.
I don't have the specs of the Linux PC hardware handy, but I recall
they're *very* highend dual-P4's, like 2.4Ghz, very fast PCI bus, etc.
Shouldn't be a factor here.
1. Filtering based on source address only, for example:
$fwcmd -A $MAIN -p udp -s 10.0.0.1 -j DROP
...
$fwcmd -A $MAIN -p udp -s 10.0.3.255 -j DROP
$fwcmd -A $MAIN -p udp -j ACCEPT
Results:
rules | plain NF | NF-HIPAC
| sent | got thru | sent | got thru |
(n.o) | (Mbit/s) | (Mbit/s) | (Mbit/s) | (Mbit/s) |
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 | 956,00 | 953,24 | 956,00 | 953,24 |
512 | 956,00 | 800,68 | 956,46 | 952,81 |
1024 | 956,00 | 472,78 | 956,46 | 952,81 |
2048 | 955,99 | 170,52 | 956,46 | 952,86 |
3072 | 956,00 | 51,97 | 956,46 | 952,85 |
2. Filtering based on UDP protocol's source port, for example:
$fwcmd -A $MAIN -p udp --source-port 1 -j DROP
...
$fwcmd -A $MAIN -p udp --source-port 1024 -j DROP
$fwcmd -A $MAIN -p udp -j ACCEPT
Results:
rules | plain NF | NF-HIPAC
| sent | got thru | sent | got thru |
(n.o) | (Mbit/s) | (Mbit/s) | (Mbit/s) | (Mbit/s) |
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 | 955,37 | 954,33 | 956,46 | 952,85 |
512 | 980,68 | 261,41 | 956,46 | 951,92 |
1024 | N/A | N/A | 956,47 | 952,86 |
2048 | N/A | N/A | 956,46 | 952,85 |
3072 | N/A | N/A | 956,46 | 952,85 |
N/A = Netfilter bridging can't handle this at all, no traffic can pass the
bridge.
So, plain Netfilter can tolerate about a couple of hundred rules
checking for addresses and/or ports on a gigabit line.
With HIPAC Netfilter, packet loss is very low, less than 0.5%, even with the
maximum number (of tested) rules, the same amount as without filtering at
all.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz wrote:
> You wrote:
> >>We are going to test the stuff tomorrow on an i386 and tell you
> >>the results afterwards.
>
> Well, nf-hipac works fine together with the ebtables patch for 2.4.21
> on an i386 machine. We expect it to work with other patches too.
>
> >>In principle, nf-hipac should work properly whith the bridge patch.
> >>We expect it to work just like iptables apart from the fact that
> >>you cannot match on bridge ports.
>
> Well, this statement holds for the native nf-hipac in/out interface
> match but of course you can match on bridge ports with nf-hipac
> using the iptables physdev match. So everything should be fine :)
>
> > One obvious thing that's missing in your performance and Roberto's figures
> > is what *exactly* are the non-matching rules. Ie. do they only match IP
> > address, a TCP port, or what? (TCP port matching is about a degree of
> > complexity more expensive with iptables, I recall.)
>
> [answered in private e-mail]
>
>
> Regards,
>
> +-----------------------+----------------------+
> | Michael Bellion | Thomas Heinz |
> | <mbellion@xxxxxxxxx> | <creatix@xxxxxxxxx> |
> +-----------------------+----------------------+
>
>
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|