Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:31:20 +0300 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Victor Gamov <vit@otcnet.ru>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: finding optimal ipfw strategy Message-ID: <0545745c-a6ee-b6d3-09ac-a8c74295de75@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <25f37482-80b7-3aea-2c67-20faedadf429@grosbein.net> References: <f38b21a5-8f9f-4f60-4b27-c810f78cdc88@otcnet.ru> <4ff39c8f-341c-5d72-1b26-6558c57bff8d@grosbein.net> <270233d9-fcdb-fee9-2557-c2d1ec7bf9e6@yandex.ru> <25f37482-80b7-3aea-2c67-20faedadf429@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --4bFNlAvtUTZYhicmzK2qo2ePaDhEWTmAC Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="UivDHSUw0OzG4m32Z0Wvvq7hn3OVkj6c9"; protected-headers="v1" From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Victor Gamov <vit@otcnet.ru>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <0545745c-a6ee-b6d3-09ac-a8c74295de75@yandex.ru> Subject: Re: finding optimal ipfw strategy References: <f38b21a5-8f9f-4f60-4b27-c810f78cdc88@otcnet.ru> <4ff39c8f-341c-5d72-1b26-6558c57bff8d@grosbein.net> <270233d9-fcdb-fee9-2557-c2d1ec7bf9e6@yandex.ru> <25f37482-80b7-3aea-2c67-20faedadf429@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <25f37482-80b7-3aea-2c67-20faedadf429@grosbein.net> --UivDHSUw0OzG4m32Z0Wvvq7hn3OVkj6c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 26.08.2019 03:30, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >>> Also, you should use old table numbers instead of new symbolic table = names >>> when you have many rules checking for interface names and much traffi= c >>> because checks for numbered tables are slightly more efficient. >>> You may use symbolic names still at source level: >> >> There isn't any old tables, all tables have symbolic names. Even when >> you are creating "table(1)", its name is converted into symbolic name.= >=20 > Yes, and this code path is slightly more efficient. A bit. I have not any performance measurements, but this code is for compatibility and it has more checks to implement this compatibility. So, I doubt it is more efficient :) Internally all symbolic names are mapped into indexes and there should not be any performance impact on packets processing. --=20 WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov --UivDHSUw0OzG4m32Z0Wvvq7hn3OVkj6c9-- --4bFNlAvtUTZYhicmzK2qo2ePaDhEWTmAC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/ iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE5lkeG0HaFRbwybwAAcXqBBDIoXoFAl1jmNgACgkQAcXqBBDI oXqkNQf9GfZJ16hv+7jIRDkylfxkjy/01nT2X6b+wfP7JpbRFXzoPdRE9H2Y8uQN kfLDg9QOjxuVBHJAcpMEeKjEA5Z78V1ZiQym0X/kmbhfvx13vZLqE9fWRwE6PPBb 2l5QdmGNPAeayNEDSL4aEOjcd4P1cIpngIvB2JbqWHEB2uBJritDBAwYSZqvArtJ yGKoiRrhKTFlIqUaZks/mOol9OGBB4adrCLxIsYOt5ep7hXK0IkalgoTk8c8iylh QUvsZ5laiwdCYNMX3SJaL+yVoUk10fk/zVvC8T1i9lC5RSB/htbQ0Oz19drMX1GZ 1jXjWEgxqcgFPOs+dd8bcB+vGT6YSQ== =E92W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4bFNlAvtUTZYhicmzK2qo2ePaDhEWTmAC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0545745c-a6ee-b6d3-09ac-a8c74295de75>