On Wednesday 02 November 2005 15:23, Antonio Vargas wrote:
> On 11/2/05, Steve Snyder <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
