From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Satrapa Subject: Re: Performance Monitoring Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:16 +1100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <4001DB98.9090607@lintelsys.com.au> References: <004401c3d17c$4baa7cc0$0a01000a@xcom1> <3FF9E4B7.8010109@lintelsys.com.au> <011001c3d3f8$6a6a7e20$7700000a@lawrencewin2k> <3FFA33C7.9010806@lintelsys.com.au> <20040106033802.30955.qmail@paus.pesat.net.id> <20040105230233.27d84a49.michael@bluesuperman.com> <20040110000419.GA25191@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> Reply-To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040110000419.GA25191@cannon.eng.us.uu.net> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Ramin Dousti wrote: > One can come up with a btree which should reduce the worst case lookup to a max > of 8 lookups for a /24. It'd be better if netfilter supported some way of either binding rules to an interface, or allowing a hashtable-lookup for a "jump" based on IP address.