From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 30 15:15:36 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997C7106566C; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:15:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ermal.luci@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3049A8FC13; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnk5 with SMTP id k5so1225601ggn.13 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:15:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kXkCi0hPJDoz1lD+HTZ2cvV8w6bpTbavkpr6twsPJYU=; b=H71McfNozWSXLbV/TaurY5s/qgPmWEvWmzpPkdULJHFKwQnfaK1CnDU17zZQuwkStI K+GdxXAgCh2bF05Hn0H3wAT3cn+K9jLSA05h70rx9Knu4VCO8kIQVHMXFq0oxIymbiPu H9W+1YWwHfapUtSCsRk6g7RB7NqgMQsVyT3Fk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.207.72 with SMTP id lu8mr18131290igc.0.1327936534195; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:15:34 -0800 (PST) Sender: ermal.luci@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.134.198 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:15:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:15:34 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rY-rq-MiUoRkyi1VdRs5bCXF2yU Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= To: Ivan Voras Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] multiple instances of ipfw(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:15:36 -0000 On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 30/01/2012 13:01, Ermal Lu=E7i wrote: > >> Surely i know that this is not the best way to implement generically > > > ... probably, because it's similar to VNET... > It depends on the comparison. The same argument would hold true for multiple routing tables but still they coexist. Both usages have their scopes. > >> What i would like to know is if there is interest to see such >> functionality in FreeBSD? >> >> I am asking first to see if there is some consensus about this as a >> feature, needed or not! >> If interest is shown i will transform the patch to allow: >> - ipfw(8) to manage the contextes create/destroy >> - ipfw(8) to manage interface membership. Closing the race of two >> parallell clients modifying different contextes. > > >> It is quite handy feature, which can be exploited even to scale on SMP >> machines by extending it to bind a specific instance(with its >> interaces) to a specific CPU/core?! > > > ... which is also done by VNET+JAILS. > > You should probably port it to VNET :) See above. Nevertheless, VNET is still not production use so.... > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" --=20 Ermal