Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 05:43:37 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_rmx.c ip_input.c ip_var.h Message-ID: <20020811054337.B84502@iguana.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20020811105249.GB11677@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.org on Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:52:49PM %2B0300 References: <200208091449.g79EnNRh005472@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020809080953.B62786@iguana.icir.org> <20020811105249.GB11677@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:52:49PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: ... > > this reminds me... what do we gain from having one route cached ? > > Most if not all boxes talk to multiple destinations anyways, > > > This works on assumption that two or more consecutive packets to > be forwarded are for the same destination. > > > so we should rather leverage on the cache in ip_flow.c than > > use this trick. > > > Fast forwarding is incompatible with many standard things, as hinted > in the inet(4) manpage. i know that part of the code :) But the info in the ipflow cache is reliable, and kept updated. The incompatibility only comes from the fact that some processing (e.g. firewalling, ipsec) is skipped in the fastforwarding case. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020811054337.B84502>