RFC: new ipfw options

[Maxim Ignatenko]

2009/12/9 Luigi Rizzo <rizzo at iet.unipi.it>:
> 3. a hash version of 'table's
>
>   Right now ipfw tables are implented as routing tables, which is
>   great if you have to lookup a longest matching prefix, but a
>   bit overkill if you care only for ports or jail ids, and
>   totally uninteresting if you want to lookup flow ids,
>   or generic sequence of bytes. My plan here is to reuse the
>   ipfw hash tables to make them available for 'ipfw table ...'
>   commands. To avoid code and syntax bloat, I'd use the number
>   0..TABLE_MAX-1 for the existing prefix tables, and
>   TABLE_MAX..2TABLE_MAX-1 for the new hash tables.
>
> comments welcome
>

I think better use another name ('htable' for example) instead of
overloading the old one.
And thanks for great ideas.