Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:38:58 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> 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: <52435.982085938@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:25:10 PST." <200102131725.f1DHPKO31020@iguana.aciri.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200102131725.f1DHPKO31020@iguana.aciri.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes: >> > The check is semi expensive (traverses the interface address list) > >any input packet needs to traverse the interface address list. If there is >an efficiency problem there, the fix is to use a hash table to lookup >local addresses. > >BTW can you explain me the logic in INADDR_TO_IFP ? I >am not sure i understand why IFF_POINTOPOINT is considered >differently here and not in ip_input(). > >> 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 > >what would you apply to 'forwarded' packets ? Just the >'forward' list (very hard to do in practice, as you might >have to backtrack, think of divert sockets) or the set ><input,forward,output> ? A forwarded packet would encounter three lists of rules: Input list on arrival interface forwarding list Output list on departure interface -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. 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?52435.982085938>