From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 19 19:05:30 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: 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 7D56716A41F
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:05:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from lariat.org (lariat.net [65.122.236.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A1743D45
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:05:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from anne-o1dpaayth1.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.net@lariat.net
	[65.122.236.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07636;
	Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:05:23 -0600 (MDT)
X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system
	susceptible to Internet worms.
Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050919130155.07b45850@localhost>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:05:20 -0600
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Efficient use of Dummynet pipes in IPFW
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:05:30 -0000

Oops! In my earlier message, I said:

>This doesn't work, because you must transform cond1 && cond2 && cond3...
>into multiple rules that implement ~(cond1 || cond2 || cond3...). 

I should have said that you must implement !(!cond1 || !cond2 || !cond3...).

--Brett