[CFT]: ipfw named tables / different tabletypes

[Alexander V. Chernikov]

On 06.06.2014 17:31, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 00:10:26 +0800, bycn82 wrote:
Guys, I do understand that this is an important discussion about useful 
ipfw feature,
but can you please stop invading this (totally unrelated) topic and 
return to original one?

Thank you.
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>   > Sorry for waste you time to explain it again, I will read the code first.
>
> Especially the code provided in free tutorials by your busy professor ..
>
>   > And the latest patch of `PPS` should be OK, I checked the logic carefully this time. I sent it out last weekend.
>   >
>   > logic as below, PPS actually will be fulfilled using `PPT`,(N packets per M ticks).
>
> I think a few people have pointed out likely problems with 'packets per
> tick(s)', and that people tend to prefer packets per second as a more
> natural and familiar concept.  I can see use cases for that, especially
> when applied by easily updateable (and soon, saveable) tables.
>
> Remember that HZ may be set at boot time, and will at times by people
> experimenting with, as one example, dummynet latency versus cpu use, so
> rulesets specifying packets per tick would need also to be modified to
> match, which won't happen.  Packets per second is independent of HZ and
> far easier to comprehend.  See inetd(8) for a typical PPM example, while
> PPS makes more sense for a firewall.
>
> I wonder if something like Bresenham's Linedrawing Algorithm might help?
>
> cheers, Ian
>