Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:11:13 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
Cc:        ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 ipfw2.c src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_fw2.c raw_ip.c
Message-ID:  <20040611021113.A73239@xorpc.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040611072136.GB55472@ip.net.ua>; from ru@freebsd.org on Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:21:36AM +0300
References:  <200406092010.i59KAcXH025699@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040610214059.GA3228@ip.net.ua> <200406110151.17372.max@love2party.net> <20040611072136.GB55472@ip.net.ua>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:21:36AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
...
> > number. Why did you choose to use numbers?
> > 
> This is in spirit of the current IPFW syntax: no names for rules,
> rulesets, pipes, hence no names for tables.  ;)

to elaborate further:
it makes a lot of sense for the internal representation of object
identifiers to use numbers, so that we do not need to store them
in variable-size structures (in ipfw1 this would have been a
nightmare; not so much in ipfw2) and the first lookup is still fast
(subsequent lookups cache a pointer to the target).

We should at some point introduce symbolic identifiers, probably
of the type @foo or with some special character in front, to
make it clear that these names are not hostnames or
ipfw options.


cheers
luigi



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040611021113.A73239>