Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:04:45 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> Subject: Re: ipfw table matching algorithm question Message-ID: <539D8BDD.2080104@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140615215526.U609@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <CAHu1Y73LrdrWTZ4D_q=x67D3OdG9QpCy952-piwN0j6HRNsG9Q@mail.gmail.com> <539C9BD5.70302@FreeBSD.org> <539D70BB.70203@freebsd.org> <20140615215526.U609@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15.06.2014 16:01, Ian Smith wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:08:59 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On 6/15/14, 3:00 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > > On 14.06.2014 21:35, Michael Sierchio wrote: > > > > Luigi - > > > > > > > > Does table entry matching use a longest prefix match? > > > I'm not Luigi, but the answer is "yes" anyway :) > > > > this may be about to change, because tables are getting a rewrite, > > but IP-based tables use the same code that the routing tables use. > > It'd be a bit anti-POLA for the longest prefix match behaviour to > change, though, especially with some tablearg usage. Alexander? Well, "cidr" table are LPM by their nature. Additional algorithms for matching may be introduced (dxr, hashed tables for host-only prefixes) but it won't influence user-visible behavior for given type. > > cheers, Ian > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?539D8BDD.2080104>