From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 20 18:24:43 2005 Return-Path: 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 D08E616A41F for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:24:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from flag@oltrelinux.com) Received: from mail.oltrelinux.com (krisma.oltrelinux.com [194.242.226.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6656E43D45 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:24:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from flag@oltrelinux.com) Received: from southcross.homeunix.org (ip-90-199.sn1.eutelia.it [62.94.90.199]) by mail.oltrelinux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9A711AE44; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by southcross.homeunix.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4169040D5; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:26:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:26:54 +0200 From: Paolo Pisati To: Brett Glass Message-ID: <20050920182654.GA1384@tin.it> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050918205708.08cff430@localhost> <20050918235659.B60185@xorpc.icir.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050919010035.07dfc448@localhost> <20050919005932.B60737@xorpc.icir.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050919085600.07f783f0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050919085600.07f783f0@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at krisma.oltrelinux.com 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:24:43 -0000 On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:11:33AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > I don't see it that way, because low level languages like assembler > are normally very efficient and highly granular. The underlying > opcode language of IPFW is low level for sure. But I would classify > IPFW's "language," as presented by the userland utility, as "high > level but limited." Sort of like the MS-DOS shell. just out of curiosity, what are the abilities that you miss in ipfw? (apart from the already mentioned problem) let me quote you again: > I would classify IPFW's "language," as presented by the userland > utility, as "high level but limited." what are the lowlevel bits that you miss? are you talking about the ability to directly manipulate data in a network packet or what? i'm very interested in this topic... -- Paolo