From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 13 09:32:35 2006 Return-Path: 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 B503516A401; Sat, 13 May 2006 09:32:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vadimnuclight@tpu.ru) Received: from relay1.tpu.ru (relay1.tpu.ru [213.183.112.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BC543D48; Sat, 13 May 2006 09:32:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vadimnuclight@tpu.ru) Received: by relay1.tpu.ru (Postfix, from userid 501) id 045091059EF; Sat, 13 May 2006 16:32:33 +0700 (NOVST) Received: from mail.main.tpu.ru (mail.main.tpu.ru [10.0.0.3]) by relay1.tpu.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2451059EC; Sat, 13 May 2006 16:32:32 +0700 (NOVST) Received: from mail.tpu.ru ([213.183.112.105]) by mail.main.tpu.ru with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 13 May 2006 16:32:32 +0700 Received: from nuclight.avtf.net ([82.117.64.107]) by mail.tpu.ru over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 13 May 2006 16:32:32 +0700 To: "Luigi Rizzo" References: <44648E66.6010800@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <20060512065327.B16302@xorpc.icir.org> <20060512085631.A19484@xorpc.icir.org> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 16:31:27 +0700 From: "Vadim Goncharov" Organization: AVTF TPU Hostel Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=koi8-r MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20060512085631.A19484@xorpc.icir.org> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3865) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2006 09:32:32.0305 (UTC) FILETIME=[29020210:01C67670] Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] ipfw packet tagging X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:32:35 -0000 12.05.06 22:56 Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> A question about features: is it worth adding functionality of matching >> range of tags? For example: >> >> ipfw add pass ip from any to any tagged 1-5,10,20 > > i think it is a useful feature, and if you reuse the existing code > for matching port ranges etc to implement it, performance should > be reasonably good. OK, Andrey made new version of patches available: http://butcher.heavennet.ru/patches/kernel/ipfw_tags/ Manpage patch is integrated as well as new untag/tagged range functionality, based on existing port ranges matching code. Short test shown that it works. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov