> On 28 May 2016, at 00:02 , Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:27:45PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > A> Hm, doesnt this make sense to do as part of RO_RTFREE? > > I agree that it looks messy, but for now we just need to fix instapanic. > > I will either return to this, or may be melifaro's new routing will > outperform FLOWTABLE and we can delete it.
This statement makes no sense to me at this point anymore. For local connections you have cached routes; no lookup will be faster. For forwarding flowtable should not be used anyway. What you mean is that with L2 caching in the inPCB, flowtable will become obsolete? /bz _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
