Re: New Firewall (hpf) for DragonFlyBSD

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10.01.2004, at 15:47, Proceau wrote:
> > If one wanted to go this way, one could easily use an unsigned char or
> > short int.
> With unsigned char one can address that 256 table what is too too 
> little,
> with shorts int, one can address 65535 table it is more acceptable but 
> that
> too is can for the large ones numbers rules. That becomes correct 
> starting
> from 3 bytes, which gives 16 million table, but 3 bytes it is 
> dealigned in
> the memory, therefore the best choice remains 4 bytes, and which more 
> is
> that is the fastest solution on the most current architecture.
> For me 4 octets it"s the big value for lot of rules and the less value 
> for
> small memory use.

I thought 256 would be enough as the firewall has a binary tree with 
256 nodes each level.

cheers
  simon

--
/"\   http://corecode.ath.cx/#donate
\ /
 \     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \  Against HTML Mail and News

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part