[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] nf-hipac v0.8 released

To: Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz <nf@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] nf-hipac v0.8 released
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:26:55 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3EFDF4DA.80201@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz wrote:
> You wrote:
> > Looks interesting.  Is there experience about this in bridging firewall 
> > scenarios? (With or without external patchset's like 
> >
> Sorry for this answer being so late but we wanted to check whether
> nf-hipac works with the ebtables patch first in order to give you
> a definite answer. We tried on a sparc64 which was a bad decision
> because the ebtables patch does not work on sparc64 systems.
> We are going to test the stuff tomorrow on an i386 and tell you
> the results afterwards.
> 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. The iptables' in/out interface
> match in 2.4 works the way that it matches if either in/out dev
> _or_ in/out physdev. The nf-hipac in/out interface match matches
> solely on in/out dev.

Thanks for this information.
> > Further, you mention the performance reasons for this approach.  I would 
> > be very interested to see some figures.
> We have done some performance tests with an older release of nf-hipac.
> The results are available on
> Apart from that Roberto Nibali did some preliminary testing on nf-hipac.
> You can find his posting to linux-kernel here: 
> 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. 

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.)

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>