From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 7 10:16:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72941158FF for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:16:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost.freebsd.dk [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06779; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:15:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: Patrick Bihan-Faou , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipfw optimizations In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:13:00 +0100." <200001071813.TAA05606@info.iet.unipi.it> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:15:58 +0100 Message-ID: <6777.947268958@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200001071813.TAA05606@info.iet.unipi.it>, Luigi Rizzo writes: >> I still think we should split the current "one huge list of rules" >> into several lists: > >> Two lists per interface: >> one list of rules for inbound packets >> one list of rules for outbound packets >> >> Two lists for the IP stack: >> one list of rules for incoming packets >> one list of rules for outgoing packets >> >> One list for forwarding of packets. > >aren't these three classes combined in some H-shaped way ? Could be, the forwarding branch could be a good place to hook up natd(8) for instance... -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message