svn commit: r242079 - in head: sbin/ipfw share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/netpfil/ipfw

[Gleb Smirnoff]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:29:51PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> On 25.10.2012 18:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
A> > On 25.10.2012 19:54, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> >> I still don't agree with naming the sysctl net.pfil.forward.  This
A> >> type of forwarding is a property of IPv4 and IPv6 and thus should
A> >> be put there.  Pfil hooking can be on layer 2, 2-bridging, 3 and
A> >> who knows where else in the future.  Forwarding works only for IPv46.
A> >>
A> >> You haven't even replied to my comment on net at .  Please change the
A> >> sysctl location and name to its appropriate place.
A> >
A> > Hi Andre,
A> >
A> > There were two replies related to this subject, you did not replied to
A> > them and i thought that you became agree.
A> 
A> I replied to your reply to mine.  Other than that I didn't find
A> anything else from you.
A> 
A> > So, if not, what you think about the name net.pfil.ipforward?
A> 
A> net.inet.ip.pfil_forward
A> net.inet6.ip6.pfil_forward
A> 
A> or something like that.
A> 
A> If you can show with your performance profiling that the sysctl
A> isn't even necessary, you could leave it completely away and have
A> pfil_forward enabled permanently.  That would be even better for
A> everybody.

I'd prefer to have the sysctl. Benchmarking will definitely show
no regression, because in default case packets are tagless. But if
packets would carry 1 or 2 tags each, which don't actually belong
to PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD, then processing would be pessimized.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.