On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:51:52 -0500
Steve Snyder <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
It in the kernel already! Look at
http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/Bridge
For more info
--
Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
-
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]
