From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Feb  1 10:28:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA16501
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA16492
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20539; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:30:40 -0700
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:30:40 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199602011830.LAA20539@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>
Cc: phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp), current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ip_fw ordering of rules..
In-Reply-To: <199602011640.DAA14729@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
References: <8725.823192557@critter.tfs.com>
	<199602011640.DAA14729@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > 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...
>  
> Ugh ! Then there'll be no disadvantage in removing the "sort" :-)

Except that supposedly it 'orders' things so that the most common rules
(or what it thinks should be most common) will be found at the top, thus
making it faster since you don't have to walk the entire tree.


Nate