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: 06/23/05

  • Next message: Ari Suutari: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)" 
    Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:06:18 -0700
To: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi>

    On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:52:02AM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > The patches which implement both
    > "ipfw setnexthop" and "ipfw .... defaultroute" are at:

    look reasonable, but i would like to reuse the existing 'forward' code a
    lot more, to avoid duplication and inconsistencies should we
    apply fixes/changes to that in the future.

    E.g.

    > http://www.suutari.iki.fi/freebsd/ipfw-nexthop.patch

    for the chunk at --- 2951,2987 ----
    i think it would be better to reuse the 'case TOK_FORWARD',
    by changing the opcode and messages according to the actual command.

    BTW for the 'setnexthop', the port number does not really make
    much sense... though it can be useful as a degenerate 'nexthop' case
    to forward to a local port.

    > http://www.suutari.iki.fi/freebsd/netinet-nexthop.patch

    here too i would reuse the existing code more, e.g. in ipfw_log()
    put 'case O_SETNEXTHOP' next to case 'O_FORWARD_IP' and replace
    the string "Forward" in the first snprintf() with "%s" and an
    additional argument cmd->opcode == O_FORWARD_IP ? "Forward" : "SetNextHop"

    Same in the action part at --- 2474,2490 ----, just reuse the
    O_FORWARD case and end the block with

            if (cmd->opcode == O_FORWARD_IP)
                    goto done;
            else
                    goto next_rule;

    and the check for instruction format --- 3055,3069 ----
    can just reuse the O_FORWARD_IP code with no modifications.
    (btw do we still have it under #ifdef IPFIREWALL_FORWARD ?)

            thanks
            luigi

    > These are against 5.4-RELEASE - if that causes
    > too much trouble I can try to generate them against
    > -current.
    >
    > I have tested these in lab environment, but not in production
    > use. However, I woudn't expect much problems, since these
    > features use much existing code.
    >
    > 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"

  • Next message: Ari Suutari: "Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?)"