Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:52:18 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: julian@whistle.com, kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: struct ifnet handling... Message-ID: <19980520145218.07042@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199805201046.MAA11746@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; from Luigi Rizzo on Wed, May 20, 1998 at 12:46:26PM %2B0200 References: <19980520133843.32113@follo.net> <199805201046.MAA11746@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 12:46:26PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > 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). > > > > I still don't see how you're loosing flexibility, even if you should > > decide to provide this interface as an alternate interface for the > > users. > > i was/am under the impression that you don't want to insert "SKIPTO" > instructions in your filter, but rather provide fixes paths for the > rules. No. I'd have preferred for the skipto's to be implemented as calls to separate chains, but that is too late now. Not supporting skiptos isn't an option - there is too large installed base. > if you provide SKIPTO instructions, then your proposal is a > superset of what I and presumably Julian are talking about. It is a rather different internal organization, but yes, it support the same functionality (unless you elect to use the restricted interface to make it easier for the kernel to optimize for speed). Eivind. 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?19980520145218.07042>