Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:55:54 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Maxim Ignatenko <gelraen.ua@gmail.com> Cc: ipfw@freebsd.org, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: RFC: new ipfw options Message-ID: <4B4AD98A.2080508@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <ac42db051001101342p30f0c016nd2dd6868108ff202@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091209183821.GA40814@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <ac42db051001101342p30f0c016nd2dd6868108ff202@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Ignatenko wrote:
> 2009/12/9 Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>:
>> 3. a hash version of 'table's
>>
>> Right now ipfw tables are implented as routing tables, which is
>> great if you have to lookup a longest matching prefix, but a
>> bit overkill if you care only for ports or jail ids, and
>> totally uninteresting if you want to lookup flow ids,
>> or generic sequence of bytes. My plan here is to reuse the
>> ipfw hash tables to make them available for 'ipfw table ...'
>> commands. To avoid code and syntax bloat, I'd use the number
>> 0..TABLE_MAX-1 for the existing prefix tables, and
>> TABLE_MAX..2TABLE_MAX-1 for the new hash tables.
>>
>> comments welcome
>>
>
> I think better use another name ('htable' for example) instead of
> overloading the old one.
> And thanks for great ideas.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
please keep teh current tables for IP addresses, longes prefix
matching is really hard to do right on other schemes with
the same behaviour. I know, I've tried :-)
the answer id to have different types of tabels I guess, but don't
try combine when things should remain different.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B4AD98A.2080508>