Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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 +0300
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020609043255.C44655>