[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Route cache performance under stress

To: Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:55:10 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030520074352.N40831@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 20 May 2003, Jamal Hadi wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 May 2003, Jamal Hadi wrote:
> > > I dont think the hashes are similar - its the effect into the
> > > slow path. I was told by someone who tested this on a priicey CISCO
> > > that they simply die unless capable of a feature called CEF.
> >
> > Yes, but pretty much nobody is using Cisco without CEF, except in the last
> > mile, low-end devices.
> >
> so not a GSR thing only feature. At the edges though, wouldnt it be
> important to do more sexy things than just route based on a destination
> address?

Indeed.  For example, policy-based routing (e.g. source address dependent
routing) has been claimed to be in the CEF path now (previously it was in
the slow path), but I certainly would "like" to be shown wrong. :-)

By low-end edge devices I basically meant all DSL, ISDN, cablemodem etc.  
equipment.  I don't know of "midrange" Cisco gear, but basically
everything service providers use (at least 7xxx, 10xxx, and 12xxx series)  
do support CEF (or more complicated variations of it).

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>