Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:00:40 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au> To: gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org (Gunther Schadow) Cc: snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au, altq@csl.sony.co.jp Subject: Re: (KAME-snap 4587) The future of ALTQ, IPsec & IPFILTER playing together ... Message-ID: <200105012200.IAA22724@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au> In-Reply-To: <3AEF0A8D.83847A19@aurora.regenstrief.org> from Gunther Schadow at "May 1, 1 07:12:13 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some email I received from Gunther Schadow, sie wrote: > Gunther Schadow wrote: > [snip] > > .... to make things even more complicated, we also have the > berkeley packet filter (BPF) mechanism. Heck! How could > so many things evolve that all do essentially the same > thing? The interesting thing about the BPF mechanism is > that it is very generic. Filter rules are instructions > of a virtual von-Neumann-machine (reminds me of 6502 > assembler :-). Tcpdump uses BPF, at least on FreeBSD. > But I think BPF is available on all 4.4 BSD derivatives. > > where does this fit in the crowd? BPF uses a byte-code language, like Java, to tell the matching routine what bits to compare and return a "true or false". i.e. you need to build things around it if you want to use it for packet matching, etc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105012200.IAA22724>