From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun  2 09:29:17 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BF816A421
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Fri,  2 Jun 2006 09:29:17 +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 EAF4E43D48
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Fri,  2 Jun 2006 09:29:16 +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 k529TGd6074908;
	Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id k529TGjd074907;
	Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:29:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:29:16 -0700
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
Message-ID: <20060602022916.B74593@xorpc.icir.org>
References: <200606020517.k525HHLU037819@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<200606020725.54959.max@love2party.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <200606020725.54959.max@love2party.net>;
	from max@love2party.net on Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 07:25:47AM +0200
Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/98349 [Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw2.c]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:29:17 -0000

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 07:25:47AM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> On Friday 02 June 2006 07:17, Max Laier wrote:
> > mlaier      2006-06-02 05:17:17 UTC
> >
> >   FreeBSD src repository
> >
> >   Modified files:
> >     sbin/ipfw            ipfw2.c
> >   Log:
> >   Print dynamic rules for IPv6 as well.
> >
> >   PR:             bin/98349
> >   Submitted by:   Mark Andrews
> >   MFC after:      2 weeks
> >
> >   Revision  Changes    Path
> >   1.90      +15 -5     src/sbin/ipfw/ipfw2.c
> 
> It's highly confusing that we have {src,dst}_{ip,port} in host byte order 

if i remember well, the design motivation behind this choice was that we
do range comparisons on ports and integer manipulation on the ipv4 addresses
(to apply masks and generate various indexes), so the most efficient choice
for the internal representation was host order. I'd rather keep it this way,
as we use these ops very very often, and not only performance but
even readability of the code would be impaired changing to network order.

> while {src,dst}_ip6 are in network byte order.  I think that keeping network 

As for ipv6 addresses there isn't really (yet ?) a native host support for 128-bit
operands so we could as well declare the network order to be the correct one
for native manipulation.

	cheers
	luigi