Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:40:34 -0800 From: "Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com> To: "Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "Hajimu UMEMOTO" <ume@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, David Horn <dhorn2000@gmail.com>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Unified rc.firewall ipfw me/me6 issue Message-ID: <B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A4306488F99@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com> In-Reply-To: <20100110185232.GA27907@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <25ff90d60912162320y286e37a0ufeb64397716d8c18@mail.gmail.com><ygek4wmyp3j.wl%ume@mahoroba.org><25ff90d60912180612y2b1f64fbw34b4d7f648762087@mail.gmail.com><yged42c4770.wl%ume@mahoroba.org><25ff90d61001021736p7b695197q104f4a7769b51b71@mail.gmail.com><yge8wc5u872.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20100110185232.GA27907@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>=20 > We only need one 'me' option that matches v4 and v6, because the > other two can be implemented as 'ip4 me' and 'ip6 me' at no extra > cost (the code for 'me' only scans the list corresponding to the > actual address family of the packet). I would actually vote for > removing the 'me6' microinstruction from the kernel, and implement > it in /sbin/ipfw by generating 'ip6 me'. >=20 I agree with Luigi. -- Qing
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A4306488F99>