From owner-freebsd-ipfw Sun Jun 9 4:33: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from iguana.icir.org (iguana.icir.org [192.150.187.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93F137B405 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 04:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by iguana.icir.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g59BWtB45194; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 04:32:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 04:32:55 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Adrian Penisoara Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New ipfw code available Message-ID: <20020609043255.C44655@iguana.icir.org> References: <20020608201909.A41807@iguana.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ady@freebsd.ady.ro on Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 01:29:11PM +0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 01:29:11PM +0300, Adrian Penisoara wrote: ... > What about unifying BPF and IPFW packet matching microcode, would that > be feasible ? That would even benefit for BPF/libpcap -- we will then be I am actually looking into adding a (maybe simplified) version of the "expr relop expr" feature of BPF into ipfw microinstructions. This would useful to replace some of the dedicated microinstructions we have now (to match tcpseq, tcpack, tcpwin. ip_id, fragments) moving the burden in the "compiler" rather than in the kernel. Other than that, though, some of the ipfw microinstructions are more powerful than BPF ones, e.g. those to match IP and TCP options which are scattered across the header and are not easy to catch with BPF rules. And no, I am not going to touch BPF. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message