netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] High Performance Packet Classifiction for tc framework

To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] High Performance Packet Classifiction for tc framework
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030813191757.GE4405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3F16A0E5.1080007@xxxxxxxxx> <1059934468.1103.41.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F2E5CD6.4030500@xxxxxxxxx> <1060012260.1103.380.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F302E04.1090503@xxxxxxxxx> <1060286331.1025.73.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F381B3E.6080807@xxxxxxxxx> <20030811224050.59bc36fe.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030812142913.GB18802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0308131320470.13253@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030813191757.GE4405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> You would start by search for a 217.109.0.0/16 entry.  That's
> the root in the search tree.
>
> That would match, and the matching tree node would tell you to search
> a specific table for 217.109.118.0/24.  (Actually, just
> 0.0.118.0/0.0.255.0, because this node can assume the first 16 bits).

So you have to put an entry in the /16 table for every /16 that you have a
more specific route for, right?
Then what if I have 3 different routes; one for 217.109.0.0/16, another
for 217.109.118.0/24 and one for 217.109.118.68/32?

-Ralph

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