From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 29 15:16:08 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-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 2192C37B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ints.mail.pike.ru (ints.mail.pike.ru [195.9.45.194])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DDD43F85
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from babolo@cicuta.babolo.ru)
Received: (qmail 43610 invoked from network); 29 May 2003 22:36:39 -0000
Received: from babolo.ru (HELO me) (194.58.226.160)
  by ints.mail.pike.ru with SMTP; 29 May 2003 22:36:39 -0000
Received: (nullmailer pid 6874 invoked by uid 136);
	Thu, 29 May 2003 22:19:47 -0000
X-ELM-OSV: (Our standard violations) hdr-charset=KOI8-R; no-hdr-encoding=1
In-Reply-To: <20030528045154.GA95572@mail.it.ca>
To: Paul Chvostek <paul@it.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 02:19:47 +0400 (MSD)
From: "."@babolo.ru
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99b (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Message-Id: <1054246787.649875.6873.nullmailer@cicuta.babolo.ru>
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:16:08 -0000

> I'm considering:
> 
>   ipfw add N deny ip from a.b.c.d to any
> 
> vs.
> 
>   route add -host a.b.c.d localhost
> 
> I need to block traffic to a number of IP addresses.  I thought I'd use
> ipfw to avoid things like UDP DNS lookups that might come in ant take up
> resources while my system tried to respond, but it's been suggested on
> another list that setting routes to localhost will use less resources.
> Ideally, I'd like to be able to block a few tens of thousands of IPs.
> 
> What's the scoop?
ipfw with huge list works slow.
Dont try huge route tables.

use in kernel:
pseudo-device   disc            #Discard device (ds0, ds1, etc)

and
ifconfig ds0 inet 0.0.0.1/32 (or else)
route add -host a.b.c.d 0.0.0.1
instead of localhost