Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:04:50 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, Vsevolod Lobko <seva@ip.net.ua> Subject: Re: parallelizing ipfw table Message-ID: <200511281805.11952.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20051128161934.GY25711@cell.sick.ru> References: <20051127005943.GR25711@cell.sick.ru> <20051128062732.GA58778@ip.net.ua> <20051128161934.GY25711@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Monday 28 November 2005 17:19, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > The number 65535 is some magic number, which means "take argument from > table". I will make ipfw display some word instead of 65535, for example > "tablearg". So, the rule will be looking like: > > pipe tablearg ip from any to table(1) This is not a good idea - IMHO. The problem is twofold: First, it adds a special handling for a special case and is not a general sollution to the problem (i.e. what if I want to use altq instead?). Second, it adds complexity to the already painfully complex ipfw-grammar. In my opinion we need a cleanup here first. I remember that we had an extensive discussion about this around FreeBSD-SA-05:13.ipfw - the bottom line seems to be: either parallel or cacheing. Stack storage should work as well. -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDizjHXyyEoT62BG0RAn4dAJ9vpPkhRUDj+mJA4C6G9KrK4scBPACeJ42+ ZROEbq3SDhk81rcLjLkVhdQ= =6D6I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511281805.11952.max>