Luigi, Brett, > >in terms of implementation, if you want to add it, the best place > >would be to add the 'skipto' fields to each 'action' opcode. > >I am not very interested in implementing it, though, because i still see > >ipfw as a low-level language.
Is it a goal or an observation ? > I don't see it that way, because low level languages like assembler > are normally very efficient and highly granular. The underlying > opcode language of IPFW is low level for sure. But I would classify > IPFW's "language," as presented by the userland utility, as "high > level but limited." Sort of like the MS-DOS shell. While I'm quite reluctant to complixify ipfw syntax, I must admit that having the possibility to negate a whole rule could speed up well-thought rulesets. Efficiency _is_ a goal of ipfw. This would certainly simplify some rulesets, avoiding to use De Morgan's theorem, but more importantly, this will also prevent to tests for N rules when you just want to test for the negation of N criterions. At very high PPS, when pf is not an option any more but ipfw still is, this might create a gap with the current implementation. OTOH, I agree with Luigi about the "resume" keyword. This introduces a kind of linked-lists, but this is just syntactic sugar and I can't see any performance improvement with this. This might be worth to have but I'm a little but scared about adding such options because there would be no reason then to not add other syntactic facilities, which would end up messing the whole syntax. Best regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
