From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266997AbUBGSAT (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:00:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267007AbUBGSAT (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:00:19 -0500 Received: from q.bofh.de ([212.126.220.202]:61200 "EHLO q.bofh.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266997AbUBGSAP (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:00:15 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: major network performance difference between 2.4 and 2.6.2-rc2 Mail-Copies-To: nobody From: Hilko Bengen In-Reply-To: <402403A5.4090708@tmr.com> (Bill Davidsen's message of "Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:14:13 -0500") References: <20040204125444.3f2b5e79.akpm@osdl.org> <402403A5.4090708@tmr.com> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:56:15 +0100 Message-ID: <87znbupydc.fsf@hilluzination.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bill Davidsen writes: > What would be nice is some kind of table approach, hash or tree, > which allows operations to be matches against all of the IPs in a > group, and obviously to add/delete entries. I think for simplicity > individual IPs rather than CIDR blocks are desirable. Do you mean something like ? -Hilko