Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:24:02 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] multiple instances of ipfw(4) Message-ID: <4F271882.602@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPBZQG32iyzkec4PG%2Bqay9bKfd0GiffKyRBapLkATKvHr7cVww@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPBZQG32iyzkec4PG%2Bqay9bKfd0GiffKyRBapLkATKvHr7cVww@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/30/12 4:01 AM, Ermal Luçi wrote: > Hello, > > from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of > ipfw(4) in kernel to co-exist was developed. > It can be found here > https://raw.github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/master/patches/RELENG_9_0/CP_multi_instance_ipfw.diff > > It is used in conjuction with this tool > https://raw.github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/master/pfPorts/ipfw_context/files/ipfw_context.c > It allows creation of contextes/instances and assignment of specific > interfaces to specific contexts/instances. > > Surely i know that this is not the best way to implement generically > but it gets the job done for us as it is, read below. > > 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. > > There is another design choice to be made about storing the membership > of interfaces into contexts/instances, but i do not see that as > blocking. > > 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?! for this I use multiple vimages, but just as there is room for multiplt routing tables AND vimage, there is probably room for multiple firewalls AND vimage. this is a bit more in the iptables direction I guess. > Comments/Feedback expected, > Ermal > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F271882.602>