Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:42:37 +0200 From: Maxim Ignatenko <gelraen.ua@gmail.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: new ipfw options Message-ID: <ac42db051001101342p30f0c016nd2dd6868108ff202@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091209183821.GA40814@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <20091209183821.GA40814@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/12/9 Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>:
> 3. a hash version of 'table's
>
> Right now ipfw tables are implented as routing tables, which is
> great if you have to lookup a longest matching prefix, but a
> bit overkill if you care only for ports or jail ids, and
> totally uninteresting if you want to lookup flow ids,
> or generic sequence of bytes. My plan here is to reuse the
> ipfw hash tables to make them available for 'ipfw table ...'
> commands. To avoid code and syntax bloat, I'd use the number
> 0..TABLE_MAX-1 for the existing prefix tables, and
> TABLE_MAX..2TABLE_MAX-1 for the new hash tables.
>
> comments welcome
>
I think better use another name ('htable' for example) instead of
overloading the old one.
And thanks for great ideas.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ac42db051001101342p30f0c016nd2dd6868108ff202>