From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 1 08:36:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA08662 for current-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:36:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from tfs.com (tfs.com [140.145.250.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA08579 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.tfs.com by tfs.com (smail3.1.28.1) with SMTP id m0ti1zK-0003x9C; Thu, 1 Feb 96 08:35 PST Received: from localhost.tfs.com (localhost.tfs.com [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA08727; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 17:35:58 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: critter.tfs.com: Host localhost.tfs.com didn't use HELO protocol To: michael butler cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ip_fw ordering of rules.. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Feb 1996 03:28:01 +1100." <199602011628.DAA14231@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 17:35:57 +0100 Message-ID: <8725.823192557@critter.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > > > Does anybody but me find the ordering IP_FW does weird ? > > Yes ! > > On the other side, I understand that searching a rule tree similar to that > found in the routing tables is of considerable performance advantage as > compared to the traversal a (possibly lengthy) singly linked list .. It is always a singled linked list anyway... At least as far as I can tell... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.