> is fast, as fast as it gets. It is my understanding that BPF
> is very fast
wrong. It is an interpreted bytecode, much slower than,
say, approaches which translate individual filters into
native machine code (DPT/DPF ? don't remember the exact reference,
it was some usenix/sigcomm paper).
>
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:50:25AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> wrong. It is an interpreted bytecode, much slower than,
> say, approaches which translate individual filters into
> native machine code (DPT/DPF ? don't remember the exact reference,
> it was some usenix/sigcomm paper).
http://www.pd
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 09:50:25AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> wrong. It is an interpreted bytecode, much slower than,
> say, approaches which translate individual filters into
> native machine code (DPT/DPF ? don't remember the exact reference,
> it was some usenix/sigcomm paper).
The fact
