Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 06:34:56AM +, Walery Kokarev wrote:
And why can't one use divert(4) interface? It looks quite suitable for
that particular task.
no _that_ would really be a performance killer!
___
freebsd-net@freebsd
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 06:34:56AM +, Walery Kokarev wrote:
> And why can't one use divert(4) interface? It looks quite suitable for
> that particular task.
no _that_ would really be a performance killer!
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
And why can't one use divert(4) interface? It looks quite suitable for
that particular task.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 05:40:32PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> On Saturday 16 July 2005 17:02, Chris Dionissopoulos wrote:
> > Hi ppl, ( and sorry for cross posting)
> >
> > I review Andrey's Elsukov patch for adding "bound" support in ipfw, and i
> > decide to push a little forward this feature.
>
Hi ppl, ( and sorry for cross posting)
I review Andrey's Elsukov patch for adding "bound" support in ipfw, and i
decide to push a little forward this feature.
Sorry to be blunt, but I don't see the point in this feature nor do I think
it's a good idea. All it does is adding overhead to ever
On Saturday 16 July 2005 17:02, Chris Dionissopoulos wrote:
> Hi ppl, ( and sorry for cross posting)
>
> I review Andrey's Elsukov patch for adding "bound" support in ipfw, and i
> decide to push a little forward this feature.
Sorry to be blunt, but I don't see the point in this feature nor do I
