From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jun 13 23:47:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C36637B400 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.3/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5E6jYV7038615; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:45:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: "'Luigi Rizzo'" Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw rewrite - new snapshot available In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:13:19 PDT." <20020613171319.D93980@iguana.icir.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:45:34 +0200 Message-ID: <38614.1024037134@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20020613171319.D93980@iguana.icir.org>, "'Luigi Rizzo'" writes: >as I mentioned in a posting to -net a few days ago, over the past >weeks I have done an extensive rewrite of the ipfw code (both userland >and kernel) in an attempt to make it faster, more flexible and more >manageable. Does your testing reveal if it is faster ? Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message