From owner-freebsd-net Tue May 2 10: 6: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7EA37B8BF; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:05:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id KAA02870; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <200005021705.KAA02870@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: ether matching in ipfw?? In-Reply-To: from Robert Watson at "May 1, 2000 10:18:35 pm" To: rwatson@freebsd.org (Robert Watson) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Robert Watson writes: > One advantage to a BPF-like approach would be that you could imagine a > BPF->native code compiler, instead of a BPF execution vm in kernel, giving > performance close to ipfw, if not better, when optimized. These custom > filtering modules built from userland rulesets could also be inserted > into the graph as needed. See also.. http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~engler/dpf.html -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message