netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] ematch API, u32 ematch, nbyte ematch, basic classifier

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ematch API, u32 ematch, nbyte ematch, basic classifier
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:09:17 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1104893694.1124.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050103125635.GB26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1104812028.1085.50.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050104122738.GG26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1104844935.1085.103.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050104134126.GJ26856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1104893694.1124.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
* jamal <1104893694.1124.37.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-01-04 21:54
> I think this is a debate that can be easily settled ;->
> Agreed logic will beat brute force smartness and u32 is not exactly
> for the faint hearted. And its usability is extremely poor - but lets
> maintain its power as is.

Absolutely.

> > Using what key? We have no knowledge about what the ematches want to
> > see or not.
> 
> Ok, good question ;->
> Maybe you should have own some 32 bit key?

Actually the goal of basic is to be an alternative to u32
if hashing is not required because I think adding hashing
will simply result in a duplication of u32.

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