On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:11:33AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > 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.
just out of curiosity, what are the abilities that you miss in ipfw? (apart from the already mentioned problem) let me quote you again: > I would classify IPFW's "language," as presented by the userland > utility, as "high level but limited." what are the lowlevel bits that you miss? are you talking about the ability to directly manipulate data in a network packet or what? i'm very interested in this topic... -- Paolo _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
