[tech] Murasoi IP address

[Patrick Coleman]

Very little will route at a gigabit, if you want any kind of traffic
analysis or firewalling. This includes most server hardware with a
crappy chipset. Generally the issue is not the number of rules or
whatever (because state tracking does a good job of cutting down on
those) but the number of interrupts being raised by the NIC and so the
size of the packets coming through.

You can however get layer three switches for about $3-4k that will do
gigabit static routing with little to no analysis, if that's your
thing. Or a server with a fast (by MHz, not cores) CPU, an Intel (or
some Broadcom) chipsets that does interrupt coalescing sanely, and
probably a BSD OS.

As for the IP change, just make the new IP an alias on the interface,
change all the servers and devices and DNS, confirm with tcpdump that
there's no traffic crossing the interface for the old IP (for a good
24 hours), then remove the old IP. Doesn't have to take a week, or be
difficult, or require shouting.

Cheers,

Patrick

On 08/05/2011, at 13:59, "Mitch Kelly (UCC)" <mitch at ucc.asn.au> wrote:

> These kind of devices wont do "gigabit" routing, They max out at 60~Mbit
> Routing speed, They will however do Switching at gigabit speed, So long as
> it does not go via the CPU.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tech-bounces at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au [mailto:tech-bounces at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au]
> On Behalf Of Harry McNally
> Sent: Sunday, 8 May 2011 12:19 PM
> To: tech at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [tech] Murasoi IP address
>
> On 08/05/11 09:26, Nick Bannon wrote:
>
>> Makes sense to use 130.95.13.1 now, given a little warning here.
>>
>> I was wondering how fast a TP-LINK TL-WR1043ND can do gigabit
>> routing. murasoi will do a better job, of course, but if for $75 we
>> could have a low power emergency backup router, that's a bonus. As you
>> mention it could even be a hot backup with CARP.
>
> Thanks for the moderate voice Nick :)
>
> Would low power devices like the TL-WR1043ND ever be fast and flexible
> enough
> for the main UCC router ?
>
> Harry
>