From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 25 07:18:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561A216A41F; Thu, 25 May 2006 07:18:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435D443D48; Thu, 25 May 2006 07:18:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k4P7I19W034639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 May 2006 11:18:01 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k4P7I0bh034638; Thu, 25 May 2006 11:18:00 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:18:00 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20060525071800.GF27819@FreeBSD.org> References: <200605241309.k4OD9tex003002@repoman.freebsd.org> <44747A4C.9090800@freebsd.org> <44748DF8.000002.11682@camay.yandex.ru> <4474C17A.10604@freebsd.org> <20060524162027.A38253@xorpc.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060524162027.A38253@xorpc.icir.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, bu7cher@yandex.ru, oleg@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.h ip_fw2.c src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 ipfw2.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:18:04 -0000 On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: L> > I understand your rationale. OTOH I think it's a logical blunder and allows L> > some quite confusing rule sets. What I always liked about ipfw was the simple L> > and obvious logic in the statements. Over time it becomes more and more over- L> > loaded with more stuff and also more stuff breaking the beautiful simplicity L> > and clarity the original ipfw design had. ipfw rules used to read like normal L> > sentences and were really simple to write and understand. But then I'm just L> > ranting... L> L> It is probably true that most of the times, when you tag/untag a packet L> you also need to do further processing on the packet. However, this means L> that the associated action will be a 'skipto'. But in this case, if you want to L> implement tag/untag as an action, the syntax becomes quite confusing because L> you need to specify the jump target, and the action name (tag/untag) doesn't L> properly reflect the fact that there is an implicit skipto. L> L> Given this, i think the current implementation of tag/untag is the most L> natural way to do it, and not too different from the "keep-state" option L> (which also has some side effects, namely creates a state record for L> the flow and has been in use for ages now) My first impression was very like Andre's one, but after some rethinking I had agreed with the current implementation. The argument about ALTQ (which is actually a specific case of tag action) bought me. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE