Iptables efficiency

Iptables efficiency

[Rinse Kloek]

We use a RedHat 7.3 machine as bridge on a P3 1.8 Ghz with 2 64 bits
Gigabit interfaces. On the machine we have a lot of iptables rules like :
            all  --  213.134.x.0        0.0.0.0/0
            all  --  0.0.0.0/0            213.134.x.0
TOS    all  --  213.134.x.4        0.0.0.0/0          TOS set 0x08
            all  --  0.0.0.0/0            213.134.x.4

We have about 3200 iptables rules on our bridge. I've tested today to
remove 1000 of these rules. The load dropped from about 40% to 25%. So I
think the iptables rule take up the most of the CPU load. Do you think this
is a problem of ineffeciency of iptables or just a 'limitation' in the
TCP/IP stack of linux ?

regards Rinse

Re: Iptables efficiency

[Raymond Leach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1688 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 20:04, Rinse Kloek wrote:
> We use a RedHat 7.3 machine as bridge on a P3 1.8 Ghz with 2 64 bits
> Gigabit interfaces. On the machine we have a lot of iptables rules like :
>             all  --  213.134.x.0        0.0.0.0/0
>             all  --  0.0.0.0/0            213.134.x.0
> TOS    all  --  213.134.x.4        0.0.0.0/0          TOS set 0x08
>             all  --  0.0.0.0/0            213.134.x.4
> 
> We have about 3200 iptables rules on our bridge. I've tested today to
> remove 1000 of these rules. The load dropped from about 40% to 25%. So I
> think the iptables rule take up the most of the CPU load. Do you think this
> is a problem of ineffeciency of iptables or just a 'limitation' in the
> TCP/IP stack of linux ?
> 
Probably the packet parser having a hard time trying to make sense of
that many rules ...

> regards Rinse
-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(  Raymond Leach                       )
 ) Knowledge Factory                  (
(                                      )
 ) Tel: +27 11 445 8100               (
(  Fax: +27 11 445 8101                )
 )                                    (
(  http://www.knowledgefactory.co.za/  )
 ) http://www.saptg.co.za/            (
(  http://www.mapnet.co.za/            )
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   o                                o
    o                              o
        .--.                  .--.
       | o_o|                |o_o |
       | \_:|                |:_/ |
      / /   \\              //   \ \
     ( |     |)            (|     | )
     /`\_   _/'\          /'\_   _/`\
     \___)=(___/          \___)=(___/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Iptables efficiency

[Joel Newkirk]

On Monday 10 March 2003 01:04 pm, Rinse Kloek wrote:
> We use a RedHat 7.3 machine as bridge on a P3 1.8 Ghz with 2 64 bits
> Gigabit interfaces. On the machine we have a lot of iptables rules
> like : all  --  213.134.x.0        0.0.0.0/0
>             all  --  0.0.0.0/0            213.134.x.0
> TOS    all  --  213.134.x.4        0.0.0.0/0          TOS set 0x08
>             all  --  0.0.0.0/0            213.134.x.4
>
> We have about 3200 iptables rules on our bridge. I've tested today to
> remove 1000 of these rules. The load dropped from about 40% to 25%. So
> I think the iptables rule take up the most of the CPU load. Do you
> think this is a problem of ineffeciency of iptables or just a
> 'limitation' in the TCP/IP stack of linux ?
>
> regards Rinse

What is the traffic load like?

What types of matches are you performing?  IP and port,  TOS, state, 
string?  Are most of your rules 'test and drop' or 'test and accept', or 
are you performing extensive modifications like the TOS set above?  
These are big factors in the cost of getting a packet through.

What is the structure of the ruleset?  Is it 'flat' where a given packet 
could potentially be tested against a large percentage of these rules?

If you haven't done so, try organizing your rules as a tree, using custom 
chains.  IE, instead of having 2000 rules in a row in FORWARD that test 
"-s a.b.c.d" try having rules that test "-s a.b.c.n/24" "-s a.b.d.n/24" 
"a.b.e.n/24" etc and jump to user-defined chains, one for each of the 
main rules.  This will immediately reduce the maximum number of tests 
for a given packet from ~2000 to ~260. (max now would be 253 for all 
legal values of the last octet, plus the number of rules in the main 
chain) You can further reduce by breaking that last octet down into, 
say, 16 chains of 16 IPs each, and then your second-level chains will 
contain rules that test "-s a.b.c.0/28" "-s a.b.c.16/28" "-s 
a.b.c.32/28" etc and jump to even more detailed chains.  Now you've 
reduced your maximum from ~2000 tests to ~40.  (16+16+mainchain - .0 and 
.255 only shorten two of these third-level chains)

Has removal of those rules increased the throughput, or just the CPU load 
on the bridge?

j