Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)
From: Luigi Rizzo (rizzo_at_icir.org)
Date: 06/22/05
- Previous message: Luigi Rizzo: "Re: Issues with a Large Fat pipe Network simulation"
- In reply to: Ari Suutari: "Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Next in thread: Ari Suutari: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Reply: Ari Suutari: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Reply: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Reply: Andre Oppermann: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible tocontinue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:06:49 -0700 To: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:27:30AM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I sent this to ipfw mailing list some time ago, but
> got no response. I would like to adjust ipfw behaviour
> with fwd rules to make policy routing easier (ie. make
> it separete from filtering rules). I would just like
> some input if this makes any sense (or is possible at
> all with current design).
i suggest to implement a new action 'setnexthop' which stores the
next hop as an MTAG with the packet (so it is preserved if the
packet gets passed to dummynet).
But perhaps, rather than a specific next hop, maybe you want to
pass a reference to a different routing table instead ?
cheers
luigi
> >Currently the ipfw fwd rules work so that the packet
> >is accepted when fwd rule matches.
> >
> >Would it be possible just tag the packet with
> >information about next_hop and just continue processing the
> >rules ? This would make complex rulesets with policy-based
> >routing much simpler, since one could just have relevat
> >fwd statments at beginning of rule sets and then
> >filter the packets in usual way.
>
> Ari S.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Luigi Rizzo: "Re: Issues with a Large Fat pipe Network simulation"
- In reply to: Ari Suutari: "Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Next in thread: Ari Suutari: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Reply: Ari Suutari: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Reply: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Reply: Andre Oppermann: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible tocontinue processing rest of rules after match ?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|