[HEADS UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate
araujobsdport at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 05:17:59 PDT 2008
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> Looked at the patch. Some line are changed e.g. in NAT definitions without any
> visible changes, strange.
> Also, you're adding 7 opcode in the kernel, 2 for match and 5 for setting,
> while having single "modip" action in userland. In the case of significantly
> changing compilation rulesm, etc., we may need many new opcodes so we should
> not waste them. For example, your O_IPTOSPRE is redundant because we already
> have O_IPPRECEDENCE which compiler could utilize while retainig more ABI
> I can correct and extend your patch for DSCP/TTL/any bytes (not forgetting
> credits, of course), if you're too busy...
Of course, I've interest in any external support, because I need to
finish my degree project and I'm a bit busy. Any help are welcome and
please feel free to re-work the patch. Just like the really the most
important thing is the *modip*, I'm happy that you work within this idea.
I'd like to see *modip* committed.
I continue to my research and if I've some time to work with ipfw or
another mechanism that have some relation with my project degree, I'll make.
Marcelo Araujo (__)
araujo at FreeBSD.org \\\'',)
http://www.FreeBSD.org \/ \ ^
Power To Server. .\. /_)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20080326/023d715f/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-hackers