On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: L> > I understand your rationale. OTOH I think it's a logical blunder and allows L> > some quite confusing rule sets. What I always liked about ipfw was the simple L> > and obvious logic in the statements. Over time it becomes more and more over- L> > loaded with more stuff and also more stuff breaking the beautiful simplicity L> > and clarity the original ipfw design had. ipfw rules used to read like normal L> > sentences and were really simple to write and understand. But then I'm just L> > ranting... L> L> It is probably true that most of the times, when you tag/untag a packet L> you also need to do further processing on the packet. However, this means L> that the associated action will be a 'skipto'. But in this case, if you want to L> implement tag/untag as an action, the syntax becomes quite confusing because L> you need to specify the jump target, and the action name (tag/untag) doesn't L> properly reflect the fact that there is an implicit skipto. L> L> Given this, i think the current implementation of tag/untag is the most L> natural way to do it, and not too different from the "keep-state" option L> (which also has some side effects, namely creates a state record for L> the flow and has been in use for ages now)
My first impression was very like Andre's one, but after some rethinking I had agreed with the current implementation. The argument about ALTQ (which is actually a specific case of tag action) bought me. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
