Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:00:46 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Specififying IPFW unpriveleged port ranges with a mask Message-ID: <31572.1006340446@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:33:35 CST." <20011120213335.GA44741@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Mind you, IPFW efficiency is the least of my worries with natd chomping between 40% and 70% of one of this dual PII's CPUs. :-) Thanks for the explanation. Ciao, Sheldon. 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?31572.1006340446>