On 02.08.16 09:47, Julian Elischer wrote: > Do we have any movement on these improvements? > even similar functionality by different names is ok. > > 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most > important for me. (store-state)? > 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less important > for me.
So, if there are nobody against, I plan to commit this part in a several days. > 3/ multiple state tables? this was discussed and I thought I saw patches > but I haven't seen it going in, <-- super luxurious AFAIR, this was a part of "per-interface firewall" patch from eri@ and I think it is mostly outdated now, because in head/ we did very complex changes in ipfw. -- WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
