Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:59:06 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <lists@wm-access.no> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za> Subject: Re: ipfw performance and random musings. Message-ID: <450935FA.3060105@wm-access.no> In-Reply-To: <20060825064627.D6023@xorpc.icir.org> References: <rizzo@icir.org> <E1GGbiP-000DFG-1B@hetzner.co.za> <20060825064627.D6023@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 03:27:17PM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: >> Luigi Rizzo wrote: >>> i am basically ok with this except, as i said, that there is >>> no point in replicating the interface name i.e. why re0-re5 >>> instead of just re0-5 ? you just open up to possible mistakes >>> and the need for extra code to check what happens when the user >>> types re2-de5 (by mistake or intentionally). >> Ok, it's just syntactic sugar anyway which doesn't really affect >> implimentation anyway. >> >> So, to recap. You will be fine with although I'm now leaning toward >> "factor" in stead of "delta" but that will be a trivial change and >> I'd like to change "@" to "indirect". >> >> skipto @ via vlan2-264 base 100 delta 100 >> >> or as I'd prefer >> >> skipto indirect via vlan2-264 base 100 factor 100 >=20 > either way is fine with me. >=20 How about; skipto 1000:1000 via vlan2-264 ?? --=20 Sten Daniel S=F8rsdal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?450935FA.3060105>