![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Pekka You wrote: >>We are going to test the stuff tomorrow on an i386 and tell you >>the results afterwards. Well, nf-hipac works fine together with the ebtables patch for 2.4.21 on an i386 machine. We expect it to work with other patches too. >>In principle, nf-hipac should work properly whith the bridge patch. >>We expect it to work just like iptables apart from the fact that >>you cannot match on bridge ports. Well, this statement holds for the native nf-hipac in/out interface match but of course you can match on bridge ports with nf-hipac using the iptables physdev match. So everything should be fine :) > One obvious thing that's missing in your performance and Roberto's figures > is what *exactly* are the non-matching rules. Ie. do they only match IP > address, a TCP port, or what? (TCP port matching is about a degree of > complexity more expensive with iptables, I recall.) [answered in private e-mail] Regards, +-----------------------+----------------------+ | Michael Bellion | Thomas Heinz | | <mbellion@hipac.org> | <creatix@hipac.org> | +-----------------------+----------------------+ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:42 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||