On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Ian FREISLICH <i...@clue.co.za> wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Sami Halabi <sodyn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This was actually discussed much before, as I read it would make some > > > issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb. > > > > > Not really since Gleb just changed the locking and nothing else. > > All his work is under the hood. > > > > He actually broke if-bound state but that's another story. > > Do you have more details on this? We use ifbound state in production > and I haven't noticed any issues with ifbound state, the way that > we use it. > > Well 'broken' is maybe not the good word depending on the context. The issue is that if-bound state in HEAD is a null op. Since every state goes into the hash buckets. Before with if-bound states a state will be bound to an interface so a packet coming/going from/to another interface would not match. Also would give some resilience with dynamic interfaces. Today its a null op. So it voids the keyword which should be deprecated in FreeBSD or should be reintroduced! Also it may break people assumptions on it. > There is however an issue with route-to and reply-to when using > ifbound state, but that problem existed before Gleb's work. > > Ian > > -- > Ian Freislich > -- Ermal _______________________________________________ freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
