RFC: new ipfw options

[Julian Elischer]

Maxim Ignatenko wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ipfw at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

please keep teh current tables for IP addresses, longes prefix
matching is really hard to do right on other schemes with
the same behaviour. I know, I've tried :-)

the answer id to have different types of tabels I guess, but don't
try combine when things should remain different.