Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:45:37 +0200 | From | Roberto Nibali <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] nf-hipac v0.8 released |
| |
Hello,
>>Apart from that Roberto Nibali did some preliminary testing on nf-hipac. >>You can find his posting to linux-kernel here: >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103358029605079&w=2 >> >>Since there are currently no performance tests available for the >>new release we want to encourage people interested in firewall >>performance evaluation to include nf-hipac in their tests. > > Yes, I had missed this when I quickly looked at the web page using lynx. > Thanks. > > 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.)
When I did the tests I used a variant of following simple script [1].
There you can see that I only used a src port range. In an original paper I wrote for my company (announced here [2]) I did create rules that only matched IP addresses, the results were bad enough ;).
Meanwhile I should revise the paper as quite a few things have been addressed since then: For example the performance issues with OpenBSD packet filtering have mostly been squashed. I didn't continue on that matter because I fell severely ill last autumn and first had to take care of that.
[1] http://www.drugphish.ch/~ratz/genrules.sh [2] http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0203.3/0847.html
HTH and Best regards, Roberto Nibali, ratz -- echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq'|dc
- 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/
|  |