Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 09:47:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: eivind@yes.no, kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: struct ifnet handling... Message-ID: <199805200747.JAA11373@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980520002407.21215A-100000@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at May 20, 98 00:31:34 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > where there were logical splits, based on an automated transform of > > rules. These differences _are_ there, no matter what - there are > > those 6 classes of rules (at least). > > > > BTW: The concept of 'chains' are used on the Ciscos (there called > > 'rule lists' IIRC). > > what's so difficult about: > 100 [common rules always done] <snip> Nothing :) I think it is only a matter of naming (witnessed by the "rule list" name used by cisco) and perhaps of having some default demux/mux of 'chains' (but that could give a loss of flexibility for no real performance advantage). luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805200747.JAA11373>