Hello Luigi,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:52:01PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> ...
> > > if i understand well, this has no runtime overhead as the ifp has
> > > the index of the context it
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:52:01PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> > if i understand well, this has no runtime overhead as the ifp has
> > the index of the context it refers to ?
> > Or you need an additional IPFW_CTX_RLOCK() ?
> >
>
> Theoreti
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> reviving this old thread since i had time to bring the patch to FreeBSD 10
>> and unified the whole controlling under ipfw(8) binary.
>>
>> For reminder, the patch loc
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> reviving this old thread since i had time to bring the patch to FreeBSD 10
> and unified the whole controlling under ipfw(8) binary.
>
> For reminder, the patch located at [1] provides multiple instances for
> ipfw(4).
> Basically yo
Hello,
reviving this old thread since i had time to bring the patch to FreeBSD 10
and unified the whole controlling under ipfw(8) binary.
For reminder, the patch located at [1] provides multiple instances for
ipfw(4).
Basically you can control which interfaces belong to which context/ruleset
to m
On 2/8/12 6:09 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> 2012/2/8 Gleb Smirnoff:
E> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
E> > L> if i understand what the patch does, i think it makes sense to be
E> > L> able to hook
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> 2012/2/8 Gleb Smirnoff :
E> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
E> > L> if i understand what the patch does, i think it makes sense to be
E> > L> able to hook ipfw instances to specific interfaces/sets of inte
2012/2/8 Gleb Smirnoff :
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> L> if i understand what the patch does, i think it makes sense to be
> L> able to hook ipfw instances to specific interfaces/sets of interfaces,
> L> as it permits the writing of more readable rulesets. Right
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
L> if i understand what the patch does, i think it makes sense to be
L> able to hook ipfw instances to specific interfaces/sets of interfaces,
L> as it permits the writing of more readable rulesets. Right now the
L> workaround is start th
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:01:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of
>> ipfw(4) in kernel to co-exist was developed.
>> It can be found here
>> https://raw.github.com/bsdpe
Hi Ermal Lu?i!
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:53:30 +0100; Ermal Lu?i wrote about 'Re: [PATCH]
multiple instances of ipfw(4)':
>>> It is used in conjuction with this tool
>>> https://raw.github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/master/pfPorts/ipfw_context/files/ipfw_context
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 01:01:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> Hello,
>
> from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of
> ipfw(4) in kernel to co-exist was developed.
> It can be found here
> https://raw.github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/master/patches/RELENG_9_0/CP_multi_inst
On 1/31/12 12:53 AM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Vadim Goncharov
wrote:
Hi Ermal Lu?i!
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:01:13 +0100; Ermal Lu?i wrote about '[PATCH] multiple
instances of ipfw(4)':
from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Vadim Goncharov
wrote:
> Hi Ermal Lu?i!
>
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:01:13 +0100; Ermal Lu?i wrote about '[PATCH] multiple
> instances of ipfw(4)':
>
>> from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of
>> ipfw(4
On 1/30/12 4:01 AM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
Hello,
from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of
ipfw(4) in kernel to co-exist was developed.
It can be found here
https://raw.github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/master/patches/RELENG_9_0/CP_multi_instance_ipfw.diff
It is used in co
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 30/01/2012 13:01, Ermal Luçi wrote:
>
>> Surely i know that this is not the best way to implement generically
>
>
> ... probably, because it's similar to VNET...
>
It depends on the comparison.
The same argument would hold true for multiple r
Hello,
from needs on pfSense a patch for allowing multiple intances of
ipfw(4) in kernel to co-exist was developed.
It can be found here
https://raw.github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense-tools/master/patches/RELENG_9_0/CP_multi_instance_ipfw.diff
It is used in conjuction with this tool
https://raw.gith
17 matches
Mail list logo
