From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 25 20:30:06 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D26145 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:30:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C497F8FC14 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:30:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 43636 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2012 22:07:40 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Oct 2012 22:07:40 -0000 Message-ID: <5089A13F.8080405@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:29:51 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" Subject: Re: svn commit: r242079 - in head: sbin/ipfw share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/netpfil/ipfw References: <201210250939.q9P9dF0q022970@svn.freebsd.org> <508960C2.6030003@freebsd.org> <508967E3.3070508@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <508967E3.3070508@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:30:06 -0000 On 25.10.2012 18:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 25.10.2012 19:54, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> I still don't agree with naming the sysctl net.pfil.forward. This >> type of forwarding is a property of IPv4 and IPv6 and thus should >> be put there. Pfil hooking can be on layer 2, 2-bridging, 3 and >> who knows where else in the future. Forwarding works only for IPv46. >> >> You haven't even replied to my comment on net@. Please change the >> sysctl location and name to its appropriate place. > > Hi Andre, > > There were two replies related to this subject, you did not replied to > them and i thought that you became agree. I replied to your reply to mine. Other than that I didn't find anything else from you. > So, if not, what you think about the name net.pfil.ipforward? net.inet.ip.pfil_forward net.inet6.ip6.pfil_forward or something like that. If you can show with your performance profiling that the sysctl isn't even necessary, you could leave it completely away and have pfil_forward enabled permanently. That would be even better for everybody. >> Also an MFC's after 2 weeks must ensure that compiling with IPFIREWALL_ >> FORWARD enabled the sysctl at the same time to keep kernel configs >> within 9-stable working. > > Yes, it will work like that. Excellent. Thank you. -- Andre