From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 22 16:24:53 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455CA16A41C for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:24:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5C343D55 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:24:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5MGOqRw095491; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:24:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id j5MGOqwZ095490; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:24:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:24:52 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Ari Suutari Message-ID: <20050622092452.A95367@xorpc.icir.org> References: <42B7B352.8040806@suutari.iki.fi> <20050621170649.B82876@xorpc.icir.org> <42B94023.3090202@suutari.iki.fi> <20050622053307.B90964@xorpc.icir.org> <42B98FA0.3030805@suutari.iki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <42B98FA0.3030805@suutari.iki.fi>; from ari@suutari.iki.fi on Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:19:44PM +0300 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?) 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: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:24:53 -0000 On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:19:44PM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote: > > yes i think you should reuse the tag, just add a new opcode so that > > the action is attach the mtag to the mbuf if not there yet > > (maybe override its content if you believe you could match multiple rules of > > this type) and then continue processing as in a 'count' action. > > Differences to "ipfw fwd" seem to be minimal. Maybe a sysctl yes but it is a different action and you may want both types of rules in the same ruleset, so a sysctl is out of discussion. I really believe the "setnexthop" action is the best approach. > which changes fwd rule behaviour so that it can either work > as before or similar to 'count' action would be better solution ? > This would be similar to net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass. i admit that there is some similarity... but not 100%... :) cheers luigi > (I'm not very actively pushing to sysctl solution, I would > just like to find out best approach before starting actual > coding) > > Ari S. > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.10/25 - Release Date: 21.6.2005 > > _______________________________________________ > 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"