> > > I agree that having a `switch' type of rule for selecting interfaces
> > > would be a reasonable gain of efficiency (but then again.. how
> > > many interfaces is one using!)
> >
> > It doesn't matter, it has to do the lookup on a per-interface basis. On
> > my firewall box, I have 11 interfaces.
> > Two ethernet, one loopback, 4 slip, and 4 tunnel.
i meant, if you only have 2-3 interfaces which are used 90% of the times,
then you really have 1-2 extra rules to look for.
But, in any case, it seems reasonably clear that a 'switch'
statement would simplify rule writing in a number of situations,
and i agree with Rod that the way ipfw does (having all rules
potentially applicable for all cases) is very very flexible
and probably more convenient than per-interface lists in many
cases.
cheers
luigi
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Luigi RIZZO, [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa
TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy)
Mobile +39-347-0373137
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
