Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:48:37 +0800 From: bycn82 <bycn82@gmail.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw Message-ID: <CAC%2BJH2wV4RsFVg7kNCK7fuLCHEvpifyr5PNM%2BiEnE55ieHPSPQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140529141559.GC74344@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <CAC%2BJH2x08jGWyaRKoE8PwXcwv555EhDP576-WJd5vZDrF%2Bnsbg@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BgQZQXOj8Ga%2Br%2BORMKX-WVXo=aTND-EA0WPF3Z%2BR30j-g@mail.gmail.com> <001b01cf7b3b$dfd1cfb0$9f756f10$@gmail.com> <20140529131015.GA72798@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <003201cf7b44$bfd6ed40$3f84c7c0$@gmail.com> <20140529141559.GC74344@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Back from the world cup,Let's talk about the topic of U32, You guys are right, It is almost useless if it can only filter by the 5 tuples. But in my opinion, It can do "regex match" based on the pattern. So it can do something "layer7 filtering". Sure the performance is biggest issue. Any comments? On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:48:58PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:rizzo@iet.unipi.it] > > Sent: 29 May, 2014 21:10 > > To: bycn82 > > Cc: 'FreeBSD Net' > > Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more > rule options. But the my question is do we have enough options to match all > the fixed position values? > > > > > > > > we do not have an option for fixed position matching. > > > > > > > > Can I say that ???It will be useful when a user come up with a special > requirement which cannot be fulfilled by any existing rule option.??? Since > there are so many rule options already. So I don???t know when that special > requirement will appear. L that is what you said ???useless???, I accept > that . > > please re-read what i said below. 'mostly useless' != 'useless', > and i am ok importing a clean implementation. > > > As i said, feel free to submit one and i will be happy to import it if > the code is clean (btw i am still waiting for fixes to the other 'rate > limiting' option you sent), but keep in mind that 'fixed position' is > mostly useless. > > > > Which `rate limiting`, the `Packet per second`? > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/189720 > > ok commented the remaining problems with a separate email. > > > More useful options would be one where you express the position as > > > > > > > > '{MAC|VLAN|IP|UDP|TCP|...|PAYLOAD}+offset' > > > > > > > > It is possible, > > > > match <position> <mask> <value> > > > > the <mask> can be a pattern , then that means it can match multiple > value at the same time. > > what i wrote is a completely different thing. Never mind. > > cheers > luigi > > > > > > > > > so at least you can adapt to variant headers, or one where you can look > for a pattern in the entire packet or in a portion of it. > > > > > > > cheers > > > > luigi > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAC%2BJH2wV4RsFVg7kNCK7fuLCHEvpifyr5PNM%2BiEnE55ieHPSPQ>