From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 11:52:26 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301A91065679 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:52:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ptyll@nitronet.pl) Received: from mail.nitronet.pl (smtp.nitronet.pl [195.90.106.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D148FC17 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:52:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailnull by mail.nitronet.pl with virscan (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1PB453-0009XO-4y for freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:22:09 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:22:00 +0200 From: Pawel Tyll X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1097280104.20101027132200@nitronet.pl> To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Nitronet.pl X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ptyll@nitronet.pl X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.nitronet.pl); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: IPFW tables max X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:52:26 -0000 Hi list, Quick question: is there any reason NOT to increase net.inet.ip.fw.tables_max to, lets say, 65536? I have no intention of having that many tables, but ruleset will look cleaner if I'll be able to use table numbers related to VLAN IDs etc. Default limit of 128 tables seems a bit small, maybe there's some reason behind it that I don't see - hence the question :)