Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:04:35 +0300 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: lev@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? Message-ID: <57618AA3.7050304@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20160616003432.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <20160607220136.R15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <8fd8d2f7-72f9-4a0f-5123-d080450d3261@freebsd.org> <20160616003432.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --T7QcehiCI8A4lwdrljVMo8pStMFdOhoRp Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="LIlATXNbdtA1pPIDCTiI0RFJ3UwfH7RmU" From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: lev@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Message-ID: <57618AA3.7050304@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <20160607220136.R15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <8fd8d2f7-72f9-4a0f-5123-d080450d3261@freebsd.org> <20160616003432.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20160616003432.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> --LIlATXNbdtA1pPIDCTiI0RFJ3UwfH7RmU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 15.06.16 17:49, Ian Smith wrote: > Ok, but you're regularly referring to multiple state _tables_, but I=20 > think that what is proposed is one table with name added to protocol,=20 > addresses and ports as a parameter rather than as distinct tables? >=20 > Is that right, Andrey? As I said, I'm not looking at the code now. Internally it is implemented as one unsigned integer in addition to addresses and ports in flow structure. So, in general, there is still one hash table. > > I think flowname is a bad name.. it's a state table name. >=20 > I don't think so. That was just a suggestion in place of generic 'name= '=20 > but the more I read your following message, which I'll respond to next,= =20 > the more I think you've made a good case for 'flowname', which Andrey=20 > has used in latest review in ipfw(8). Onwards .. I updated the patch in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6674 Also I reworked Lev's patch on top of my patch and made it simpler: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1776#143557 --=20 WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov --LIlATXNbdtA1pPIDCTiI0RFJ3UwfH7RmU-- --T7QcehiCI8A4lwdrljVMo8pStMFdOhoRp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXYYqkAAoJEAHF6gQQyKF6rLgH/3NV2BtsJ39m2o7Qv0789iWE lFfQ/mV6zG8TgmO1YHtfDRusvd0MnoWWnkcUrkWUgEuSX/H44G+ND1QIHzUUfEyE dMA2JWd2Qhwl1QUBkEFV/pQaY0g6ETKbpU5cL7F2eqdja38pMlkZtWtY7E0TlSNO JAjcrNgSbW7k+yq6pI2BLZVgtdYNhK2X8cUQRln4Rkm/uvtKKuMHzOokUK1LYDOh mJmCajHuy2FOzAyHP6NE6/qBegsyvjbN6AwM3KDIwBT4cYVgwqthjZU71WfaanTo pYjRKgxlwj98rCWvJp73dK616sxDwSvoEQYclIMf+XbX1FyFSrpzkVG5qmy5go0= =prv7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T7QcehiCI8A4lwdrljVMo8pStMFdOhoRp--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57618AA3.7050304>