Re: [HEADS UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate

Vadim Goncharov wrote:

Looked at the patch. Some line are changed e.g. in NAT definitions without any
visible changes, strange.

Also, you're adding 7 opcode in the kernel, 2 for match and 5 for setting,
while having single "modip" action in userland. In the case of significantly
changing compilation rulesm, etc., we may need many new opcodes so we should
not waste them. For example, your O_IPTOSPRE is redundant because we already
have O_IPPRECEDENCE which compiler could utilize while retainig more ABI
compatibility.

I can correct and extend your patch for DSCP/TTL/any bytes (not forgetting
credits, of course), if you're too busy...


Of course, I've interest in any external support, because I need to
finish my degree project and I'm a bit busy. Any help are welcome and
please feel free to re-work the patch. Just like the really the most
important thing is the *modip*, I'm happy that you work within this idea.
I'd like to see *modip* committed.

I continue to my research and if I've some time to work with ipfw or
another mechanism that have some relation with my project degree, I'll make.

Best Regards,

--
Marcelo Araujo (__)
araujo@xxxxxxxxxxx \\\'',)
http://www.FreeBSD.org \/ \ ^
Power To Server. .\. /_)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Relevant Pages