Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:00:49 +0100 (CET) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@info.iet.unipi.it> To: Harold Gutch <logix@foobar.franken.de> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Patrick Bihan-Faou <patrick@mindstep.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw optimizations Message-ID: <200001072100.WAA06141@info.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <20000107201809.B17766@foobar.franken.de> from Harold Gutch at "Jan 7, 2000 08:18:09 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I agree that having a `switch' type of rule for selecting interfaces > > > would be a reasonable gain of efficiency (but then again.. how > > > many interfaces is one using!) > > > > It doesn't matter, it has to do the lookup on a per-interface basis. On > > my firewall box, I have 11 interfaces. > > Two ethernet, one loopback, 4 slip, and 4 tunnel. i meant, if you only have 2-3 interfaces which are used 90% of the times, then you really have 1-2 extra rules to look for. But, in any case, it seems reasonably clear that a 'switch' statement would simplify rule writing in a number of situations, and i agree with Rod that the way ipfw does (having all rules potentially applicable for all cases) is very very flexible and probably more convenient than per-interface lists in many cases. cheers luigi -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Luigi RIZZO, luigi@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) Mobile +39-347-0373137 -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001072100.WAA06141>