Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:14:31 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: "freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org" <ipfw@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ipfw dynamic rules Message-ID: <CAHu1Y72ZF3-Tk5Nf_yJ7QgsGMzs0MFz%2Byi2SzNAj1tLYwbD4jA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <532F6EBF.9000802@freebsd.org> References: <51546.1395432085@server1.tristatelogic.com> <20140322182402.Q83569@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <201403221454.IAA22021@mail.lariat.net> <20140322151155.184d5229@gumby.homeunix.com> <532E723C.2090109@freebsd.org> <532E7398.5090607@freebsd.org> <20140324000439.F87212@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <532EF401.80506@freebsd.org> <CAHu1Y726yvC7isq4mxKMWsot2MSt=QOe0Q8SPf9aCf3m_RAB3w@mail.gmail.com> <532F6EBF.9000802@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > but disabled rules still have a cost I believe as hey still need to be > traversed, > unless someone has been very smart.. This I did not know. I don't have many, but it's a small disappointment, if true. > It's a pitty that you need to do policy based routing only on input, > as output packets are already past their routing decision. > The 'fwd' rule can however sometimes be used later. Agreed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y72ZF3-Tk5Nf_yJ7QgsGMzs0MFz%2Byi2SzNAj1tLYwbD4jA>