From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Nov 21  2:59:45 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E897237B43B
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:59:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.seasidesoftware.co.za)
	by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 166V7W-0008DF-00; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:00:46 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>
To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>
Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Specififying IPFW unpriveleged port ranges with a mask 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:33:35 CST."
             <20011120213335.GA44741@dan.emsphone.com> 
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:00:46 +0200
Message-ID: <31572.1006340446@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-questions.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-questions>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-questions>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:33:35 CST, Dan Nelson wrote:

> To store a port range or port:mask, ipfw uses 2 entries in the ports
> array to store lo+hi, or port+mask, and sets a bit in the rule's
> 'flags' field saying "first 2 ports are a range / mask".

Oookay.  So using a mask isn't going to be more efficient?

Mind you, IPFW efficiency is the least of my worries with natd chomping
between 40% and 70% of one of this dual PII's CPUs. :-)

Thanks for the explanation.

Ciao,
Sheldon.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message