Re: Re : Re: netgraph and vpp

From: Jim Thompson <jim_at_netgate.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 06:04:37 UTC
On Nov 25, 2023 at 4:09:29 AM, Benoit Chesneau <benoitc@enki-multimedia.eu>
wrote:

>
> Thanks for your answer. So i guess if we want to build a modern router
> without custom code, vpp is the way to go in term de performance?
>

Well, that’s the path I chose back in 2016, yes.

(Might note that I also run the pfsense project, and that VPP does not
currently run on FreeBSD.)

One thing i really miss ito  cross connect 2 interfaces without using a
> bridge. Somethibg really easy and performant with  vpp...
>

kp@ added something similar using pf https://reviews.freebsd.org/D37193 but
if_bridge is pretty performant these days
https://issue.freebsdfoundation.org/publication/?i=660151


Benoit
> Le sam. 25 nov. 2023 à 00:33, Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com <Le sam. 25
> nov. 2023 à 00:33, Jim Thompson <<a href=>> a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2023 at 12:48:07 AM, Benoit Chesneau <
> benoitc@enki-multimedia.eu> wrote:
>
>> netgraph and vpp looks similar in their intent. Both are graphs to
>> process packets.
>>
>> I thought that usinv netgraph sounds interresting to build a modern
>> router or cpe. What about the perforance? Did anyone compRe? Also is there
>> any difference in term of implementation of the processing? Id there any
>> recent paper about netgraph?
>>
>
> They are very, very different. Netgraph is closer to AT&T streams, but
> with mbufs.
>
> Netgraph would probably be better implemented these days as a set of
> netmap modules, ala
> https://github.com/zeek/packet-bricks or
> https://github.com/outscale/packetgraph (this one is DPDK, but similar
> architecture)
>
>
>
>