Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:26:29 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r242079 - in head: sbin/ipfw share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/netpfil/ipfw Message-ID: <20121026112629.GC70741@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5089A13F.8080405@freebsd.org> References: <201210250939.q9P9dF0q022970@svn.freebsd.org> <508960C2.6030003@freebsd.org> <508967E3.3070508@FreeBSD.org> <5089A13F.8080405@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:29:51PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> On 25.10.2012 18:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: A> > On 25.10.2012 19:54, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> >> I still don't agree with naming the sysctl net.pfil.forward. This A> >> type of forwarding is a property of IPv4 and IPv6 and thus should A> >> be put there. Pfil hooking can be on layer 2, 2-bridging, 3 and A> >> who knows where else in the future. Forwarding works only for IPv46. A> >> A> >> You haven't even replied to my comment on net@. Please change the A> >> sysctl location and name to its appropriate place. A> > A> > Hi Andre, A> > A> > There were two replies related to this subject, you did not replied to A> > them and i thought that you became agree. A> A> I replied to your reply to mine. Other than that I didn't find A> anything else from you. A> A> > So, if not, what you think about the name net.pfil.ipforward? A> A> net.inet.ip.pfil_forward A> net.inet6.ip6.pfil_forward A> A> or something like that. A> A> If you can show with your performance profiling that the sysctl A> isn't even necessary, you could leave it completely away and have A> pfil_forward enabled permanently. That would be even better for A> everybody. I'd prefer to have the sysctl. Benchmarking will definitely show no regression, because in default case packets are tagless. But if packets would carry 1 or 2 tags each, which don't actually belong to PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD, then processing would be pessimized. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121026112629.GC70741>