Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:18:40 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.c ip_fw.h src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 ipfw.c Message-ID: <20010213151840.A622@tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <51205.982073676@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 03:14:36PM %2B0100 References: <200102131412.f1DECdZ12064@freefall.freebsd.org> <51205.982073676@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 03:14:36PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200102131412.f1DECdZ12064@freefall.freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp > > The check is semi expensive (traverses the interface address list) > > so it should be protected as in the above example if high performance > > is a requirement. > > It would be more elegant to have multiple lists of ipfw rules: > One input list per interface > One output list per interface > One list for packets being forwarded > One list for packets arriving locally > One list for packets originating locally This I like. :) Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010213151840.A622>