From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 20 21:36:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 9347416A47E for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:36:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8F343D48 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:36:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KLaeRi001531; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:36:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id k5KLaeol001530; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:36:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:36:40 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Brett Glass Message-ID: <20060620143640.B1416@xorpc.icir.org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060620143845.06662330@lariat.org> <20060620205730.GC3968@catpipe.net> <20060620140722.A1192@xorpc.icir.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060620151013.042be3f8@lariat.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060620152540.06cc64e8@lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060620152540.06cc64e8@lariat.org>; from brett@lariat.org on Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:26:25PM -0600 Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best way to block a long list of IPs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:36:42 -0000 On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:26:25PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > Oh, by the way: I should mention that the server is running FreeBSD > 4.11. It's doing file-intensive work, and file system performance > in FreeBSD 6.x is noticeably slower. ipfw tables are also in 4.11 > Your message does suggest another possible solution, though. Would > blackhole routes be more efficient than using IPFW? > > --Brett Glass