[CFT]: ipfw named tables / different tabletypes

[Luigi Rizzo]

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:33:39PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 22.05.2014 18:56, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> 
> It looks like we have reached some kind of consensus on table naming,
> so I'm going to implement the following as the first part:
> 
> * named-only tables, no "user-visible" indexes
> * Keep the same opcodes, use additional TLVs to pass names in rules
> * Use explicit userland object names retrieval while listing
> * Make the previous ones easily extendable for other ipfw objects
> * Introduce table references and explicit typecasting (while permitting 
> user to refernce non-existing tables)
> 
> * leave table atomics for one the next stages
> 
> 
> Are you OK with this?

yes i think so, this seems a good plan.

thanks for following up

cheers
luigi