From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 26 09:00:10 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD661065671 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C7F8FC1E for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org) Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JeRUJ-0000VQ-JD for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:03 +0000 Received: from 195.208.174.178 ([195.208.174.178]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:03 +0000 Received: from vadim_nuclight by 195.208.174.178 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:03 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Vadim Goncharov Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ipfw Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Nuclear Lightning @ Tomsk, TPU AVTF Hostel Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <47E79636.1000909@FreeBSD.org> <47E7EAA8.7020101@elischer.org> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.208.174.178 X-Comment-To: Julian Elischer User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) Sender: news Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:00:10 -0000 Hi Julian Elischer! On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:53:44 -0700; Julian Elischer wrote about 'Re: [HEADS UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate': > here are some of my ideas for ipfw changes: > 1/ redo locking so that packets do not have to get locks on the > structure... I have several ideas on this Currently the main need for locking arises for rule byte/packet counters. The easiest short-term solution > 2/ allow separate firewalls to be used at different parts of the > network stack (i.e allow multiple taboe sto co-exist) Umm, could you explain it a little?.. > 3/ possibly keeping per CPU stats.. How that would be represented to user? -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]