Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 17:50:44 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Net <net@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT]: ipfw named tables / different tabletypes Message-ID: <20140522155044.GB76448@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <537E18D3.2010201@FreeBSD.org> References: <5379FE3C.6060501@FreeBSD.org> <20140521111002.GB62462@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <537CEC12.8050404@FreeBSD.org> <20140521204826.GA67124@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <537E1029.70007@FreeBSD.org> <537E18D3.2010201@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:33:39PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > On 22.05.2014 18:56, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > It looks like we have reached some kind of consensus on table naming, > so I'm going to implement the following as the first part: > > * named-only tables, no "user-visible" indexes > * Keep the same opcodes, use additional TLVs to pass names in rules > * Use explicit userland object names retrieval while listing > * Make the previous ones easily extendable for other ipfw objects > * Introduce table references and explicit typecasting (while permitting > user to refernce non-existing tables) > > * leave table atomics for one the next stages > > > Are you OK with this? yes i think so, this seems a good plan. thanks for following up cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140522155044.GB76448>