On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:29:51PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> On 25.10.2012 18:25, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: A> > On 25.10.2012 19:54, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> >> I still don't agree with naming the sysctl net.pfil.forward. This A> >> type of forwarding is a property of IPv4 and IPv6 and thus should A> >> be put there. Pfil hooking can be on layer 2, 2-bridging, 3 and A> >> who knows where else in the future. Forwarding works only for IPv46. A> >> A> >> You haven't even replied to my comment on net@. Please change the A> >> sysctl location and name to its appropriate place. A> > A> > Hi Andre, A> > A> > There were two replies related to this subject, you did not replied to A> > them and i thought that you became agree. A> A> I replied to your reply to mine. Other than that I didn't find A> anything else from you. A> A> > So, if not, what you think about the name net.pfil.ipforward? A> A> net.inet.ip.pfil_forward A> net.inet6.ip6.pfil_forward A> A> or something like that. A> A> If you can show with your performance profiling that the sysctl A> isn't even necessary, you could leave it completely away and have A> pfil_forward enabled permanently. That would be even better for A> everybody.
I'd prefer to have the sysctl. Benchmarking will definitely show no regression, because in default case packets are tagless. But if packets would carry 1 or 2 tags each, which don't actually belong to PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD, then processing would be pessimized. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ 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"
