On 25.10.2012 18:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 25.10.2012 19:54, Andre Oppermann wrote:
I still don't agree with naming the sysctl net.pfil.forward. This
type of forwarding is a property of IPv4 and IPv6 and thus should
be put there. Pfil hooking can be on layer 2, 2-bridging, 3 and
who knows where else in the future. Forwarding works only for IPv46.
You haven't even replied to my comment on net@. Please change the
sysctl location and name to its appropriate place.
Hi Andre,
There were two replies related to this subject, you did not replied to
them and i thought that you became agree.
I replied to your reply to mine. Other than that I didn't find
anything else from you.
So, if not, what you think about the name net.pfil.ipforward?
net.inet.ip.pfil_forward
net.inet6.ip6.pfil_forward
or something like that.
If you can show with your performance profiling that the sysctl
isn't even necessary, you could leave it completely away and have
pfil_forward enabled permanently. That would be even better for
everybody.
Also an MFC's after 2 weeks must ensure that compiling with IPFIREWALL_
FORWARD enabled the sysctl at the same time to keep kernel configs
within 9-stable working.
Yes, it will work like that.
Excellent. Thank you.
--
Andre
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
