Linux BNG

Sun Jul 15 18:37:02 UTC 2018

On 07/15/2018 10:56 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> On 2018-07-15 19:00, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
>> On 07/15/2018 09:03 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-14 22:05, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> About OVS, i didnt looked much at it, as i thought it is not suitable 
> for BNG purposes,
> like for tens of thousands users termination, i thought it is more about 
> high speed switching for tens of VM.

I would call it more of a generic all purpose tool for customized 
L2/L3/L4/L5 packet forwarding.  It works well for datacenter as well as 
ISP related scenarios.  Due to the wide variety of rule matching, 
encapsulations supported, and the ability to attach a customized 
controller for specialized packet handling.

>> On edge based translations, is hardware based forwarding actually
>> necessary, since there are so many software functions being performed
>> anyway?
> IMO at current moment 20-40G on single box is a boundary point when 
> packet forwarding
> is preferable(but still not necessary) to do in hardware, as passing 
> packets
> thru whole Linux stack is really not best option. But it works.
> I'm trying to find an alternative solution, bypassing full stack using XDP,
> so i can go beyond 40G.

Tied to XDP is eBPF (which is what makes tcpdump fast).

Another tool is P4 which provides tools to build customized SW/HW 
forwarders.  But I'm not sure how applicable it is to BNG.
-- 
Raymond Burkholder
ray at oneunified.net
https://blog.raymond.burkholder.net