Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:21:39 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Specififying IPFW unpriveleged port ranges with a mask Message-ID: <20011121152139.GB48921@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <31572.1006340446@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> References: <20011120213335.GA44741@dan.emsphone.com> <31572.1006340446@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Nov 21), Sheldon Hearn said: > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:33:35 CST, Dan Nelson wrote: > > > To store a port range or port:mask, ipfw uses 2 entries in the ports > > array to store lo+hi, or port+mask, and sets a bit in the rule's > > 'flags' field saying "first 2 ports are a range / mask". > > Oookay. So using a mask isn't going to be more efficient? It's more efficient by a single if(), since it comes first in /sys/netinet/ip_fw.c:port_match(), but that's it :) -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011121152139.GB48921>