[CFT]: ipfw named tables / different tabletypes

[Julian Elischer]

On 6/6/14, 9:31 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 00:10:26 +0800, bycn82 wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>   > Sorry for waste you time to explain it again, I will read the code first.
>
> Especially the code provided in free tutorials by your busy professor ..
>
>   > And the latest patch of `PPS` should be OK, I checked the logic carefully this time. I sent it out last weekend.
>   >
>   > logic as below, PPS actually will be fulfilled using `PPT`,(N packets per M ticks).
>
> I think a few people have pointed out likely problems with 'packets per
> tick(s)', and that people tend to prefer packets per second as a more
> natural and familiar concept.  I can see use cases for that, especially
> when applied by easily updateable (and soon, saveable) tables.
>
> Remember that HZ may be set at boot time, and will at times by people
> experimenting with, as one example, dummynet latency versus cpu use, so
> rulesets specifying packets per tick would need also to be modified to
> match, which won't happen.  Packets per second is independent of HZ and
> far easier to comprehend.  See inetd(8) for a typical PPM example, while
> PPS makes more sense for a firewall.
>
> I wonder if something like Bresenham's Linedrawing Algorithm might help?

I already gave him a sketch of such an algorithm.

>
> cheers, Ian
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>