Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:21:36 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 ipfw2.c src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_fw2.c raw_ip.c Message-ID: <20040611072136.GB55472@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <200406110151.17372.max@love2party.net> References: <200406092010.i59KAcXH025699@repoman.freebsd.org> <200406100445.44763.max@love2party.net> <20040610214059.GA3228@ip.net.ua> <200406110151.17372.max@love2party.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:51:10AM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > On Thursday 10 June 2004 23:40, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: [...] > > One nice difference (and I don't believe PF or IPFilter can do > > this) is this optional 32-bit tag value with no special meaning. > > For example, we have several thousands of client IPs, and each > > client is allowed (through a Web form) to limit bandwidth to > > some discrete values (0, 64, 128, 256, 512, and "unlimited") in > > Kbps to/from Ukrainian and foreign networks. We have this all > > implemented using less than ten IPFW tables: > > hmmm ... I don't really see the benefit in packing the information into > one table. You could as well have different tables for that (with pf only > memory limits the number of tables allowed). > Imagine if I had 1000 possible values for rate limiting, I'd have to use 1000 tables then. Also, the lookup code caches last query so if your ruleset does say hundred lookups: pipe 1 ip from table(0,1) to any pipe 2 ip from table(0,2) to any ... pipe 100 ip from table(0,100) to any and the entry in a table has the value 100, no radix.c code will ever be called for 99 times. If it were 100 different tables, this would not work. > But it's cool that we > inspire eachother and still diverge a bit to find the best solutions for > our respective users. > Yes, sure. ;) > Btw, I find it very helpful that pf refers to a table by a name and not a > number. Why did you choose to use numbers? > This is in spirit of the current IPFW syntax: no names for rules, rulesets, pipes, hence no names for tables. ;) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAyV1/qRfpzJluFF4RAreDAJ4+vUhNGY8cSHBRWjW3JFxgSx4GPACgkV2y eaXd2uh9rYLhaNeGD+TgunY= =4njn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040611072136.GB55472>