On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:48:39 -0400
Dan Groves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> As part of project Clearview 
> (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/clearview/), we are updating 
> snoop so that it can filter VLAN tagged packets.  I've posted a design 
> document and some background information to:
> 
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/clearview/vlan_filtering/
> 
> As work progresses, I'll update the page with any man page changes, 
> PSARC cases, or other pertinent documentation.
> 
> Any comments you have on what is available would be appreciated.

Nice set of documents.  Some questions below.  The only serious
one is #3.

My first two comments on really on the recommendations document
referred to by the detailed design:

1) 4.2 paragraph 3 you state that "but will not improve performance"
referring to adding indirectly to pfmod.  I would have expected that
program which used the new indirection support would have seen
performance improvement over doing it in user space.

2) Section 2 right before the end states that "Snoop does have
optimizations where it will try and break filter expressions..."
But section 4.5 makes the statement that breaking expressions
up in general would be difficult.  I agree with the second
statement although if the only reason you couldn't do the
optimizations was schedule then I think it would make sense to
do the thing that would give you the best chance for maximal
performance in the long run and leave the implementation to
future generations.  In any case thats probably moot.  You
want to waste as few cycles on the packets you are going to
throw away as possible.

design document:

3) OK, I bite.  Why no simple way to reference the vlan id?
You add the ability to do something useful and then claim
no requirement to make it easy to use?

4) No support for VLAN stacking seems fine given lack of
general support but is there anything in your design that
precludes from adding it simply in the future?

5) section 3.4 and this is probably what you really meant
by the statemnt in 4.2 in the other document.

                        mph

> 
> thanks,
> Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> networking-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to