From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [RFC] High Performance Packet Classifiction for tc framework Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:21:58 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030813232158.GA6181@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <3F2E5CD6.4030500@hipac.org> <1060012260.1103.380.camel@jzny.localdomain> <3F302E04.1090503@hipac.org> <1060286331.1025.73.camel@jzny.localdomain> <3F381B3E.6080807@hipac.org> <20030811224050.59bc36fe.davem@redhat.com> <20030812142913.GB18802@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030813191757.GE4405@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "netdev@oss.sgi.com" Return-path: To: ralph+d@istop.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ralph Doncaster wrote: > 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? Then you would have one entry in the /16 table, matching 217.109.0.0/16, whose BEST value is the first route and whose LARGER points to another table. The second table would have one entry matching 217.109.118.0/24, whose BEST value is the second route, and whose LARGER points to another table. The third table would have one entry matching 217.109.118.68/32, whose BEST value is the third route, and which has no LARGER. That's three hash tables, each containing just one entry. -- Jamie