Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 04:32:55 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro> Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New ipfw code available Message-ID: <20020609043255.C44655@iguana.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10206091322410.44932-100000@ady.warpnet.ro>; from ady@freebsd.ady.ro on Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 01:29:11PM %2B0300 References: <20020608201909.A41807@iguana.icir.org> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10206091322410.44932-100000@ady.warpnet.ro>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 01:29:11PM +0300, Adrian Penisoara wrote: ... > What about unifying BPF and IPFW packet matching microcode, would that > be feasible ? That would even benefit for BPF/libpcap -- we will then be I am actually looking into adding a (maybe simplified) version of the "expr relop expr" feature of BPF into ipfw microinstructions. This would useful to replace some of the dedicated microinstructions we have now (to match tcpseq, tcpack, tcpwin. ip_id, fragments) moving the burden in the "compiler" rather than in the kernel. Other than that, though, some of the ipfw microinstructions are more powerful than BPF ones, e.g. those to match IP and TCP options which are scattered across the header and are not easy to catch with BPF rules. And no, I am not going to touch BPF. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020609043255.C44655>