Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:11:13 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <>
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:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>; from on Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:21:36AM +0300
References:  <> <> <> <>

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.


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>