PF bugs

[Gleb Smirnoff]

  Peter,

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 02:59:57PM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
P> > Ok.  I wish PF on FreeBSD and OpenBSD were in sync.
P> 
P> With the differences in release schedules (OpenBSD releases N.m+1
P> every six months, while the FreeBSD cycles typically take longer) a
P> total sync is unlikely, but it would save some of us a bit of
P> maintenance work if FreeBSD finally made the jump to post-OpenBSD 4.7
P> syntax and various 4.5 and onwards goodies like match, pflow and a few
P> other.

  The number of people who run both OpenBSD and FreeBSD is signficantly
less then number of people who just run FreeBSD and routinely upgrade
it from version to version. I understand that having different syntax
is a PITA for those who run both BSDs, sorry for that. But changing
syntax in FreeBSD would be PITA for a vast majority of people. That's
why many FreeBSD developers are against changing syntax.

P> Also, the new queueing subsystem that's now likely to be in OpenBSD
P> 5.5 (to be released May 1st 2014) is likely to be a major feature that
P> I think FreeBSD will want to include as soon as doable.

  While OpenBSD changes struct ifqueue if_snd in the ifnet to
if_snd[nqueues], FreeBSD moves in the direction of killing the queue.
The queue has showed itself as the major bottleneck for high speed
interfaces, and now in FreeBSD all gigabit and 10gig NIC drivers
bypass the ifqueue, it is left only for compatibility. That's why
we don't plan to move back to queues.

>From my viewpoint the best send scheduling method in the modern world
is utilize multiqueueing that NICs provide. Most high end NICs now do.
We just need some hardware abstraction layer upon that.

Right now Andre Oppermann is planning a major work on the TX side of
NIC drivers, and I'm pretty sure, he will consider traffic prioritisation.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.