From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH] net: fast consecutive name allocation Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:39:24 -0800 Message-ID: <20091113153924.6130135f@nehalam> References: <200911130701.14847.opurdila@ixiacom.com> <4AFCF8D3.6090905@gmail.com> <20091112222608.79d90e9e@nehalam> <200911131151.31677.opurdila@ixiacom.com> <20091113142939.35879efe@s6510> <20091113224043.GP19478@kvack.org> <20091113144937.23693bb4@nehalam> <20091113233504.GQ19478@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Octavian Purdila , Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Benjamin LaHaise Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:57937 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932571AbZKMXjj (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:39:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091113233504.GQ19478@kvack.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:35:04 -0500 Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:49:37PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Then maybe network devices aren't the right layering model. At some > > point the paradigm has to be re-examined. > > What is the right model for dealing with lots of connections to users and > routes? This problem isn't going to go away given the increases in > connectivity and processing power that happen each year. Today, software > routing of 10Gbps links is a reality -- part of what comes with that ability > of hardware is the need to deal with the fact that 10Gbps aggregates a lot > of users. > > -ben Well TCP handles lots of connections, but a socket has different overhead than a network device. Why should 10Gbps need 10K PPPoE sessions? Even Vlan's are less overhead than PPP --