From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 19 13:03:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60735B0D for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 13:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ipfw.ru (mail.ipfw.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:120:6141::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F57296A for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 13:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 95.108.170.210-red.dhcp.yndx.net ([95.108.170.210] helo=ptichko.yndx.net) by mail.ipfw.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WmJJM-000HGZ-ID; Mon, 19 May 2014 12:52:44 +0400 Message-ID: <537A00AC.6050305@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:01:32 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dennis Yusupoff , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [Was]: Problem with ipfw table add 0.0.0.0/8 References: <5371084F.1060009@bsdinfo.com.br> <5371112B.2030209@bsdinfo.com.br> <5371E9E7.70400@smartspb.net> <5371F4C8.3080501@FreeBSD.org> <53720AA4.80909@smartspb.net> <537767C5.80205@FreeBSD.org> <53783333.3010205@freebsd.org> <5379C6B6.4030105@smartspb.net> In-Reply-To: <5379C6B6.4030105@smartspb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:03:07 -0000 On 19.05.2014 12:54, Dennis Yusupoff wrote: > Alex, Bill, it's a good news, glad to hear it. > > Let me ask even more functionality: > > 6. Test if entry exist in table: > ipfw table test > It extremely useful in case of big, unordered data in the table - for > example different networks with different mask. Now it's almost > impossible to find out is checked IP occurs in the table or not. Longest prefix match or exact match?