From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart De Schuymer Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release of nf-HiPAC 0.9.0 Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:35:52 +0000 Message-ID: <1131575752.3423.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200509260441.42483.mbellion@hipac.org> <433AA30E.7060709@ufomechanic.net> <1128252040.3388.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200510021430.21697.mbellion@hipac.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200510021430.21697.mbellion@hipac.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michael Bellion Cc: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, netfilter@lists.netfilter.org, Amin Azez Op zo, 02-10-2005 te 14:30 +0200, schreef Michael Bellion: > > Also, is it not possible to make a B+ tree with the standard iptables? I > > don't see why it shouldn't be possible. The jump to a new chain can be > > seen as going deeper into the B+ tree. So it should be possible to > > construct an iptables table structure that looks very similar to the B+ > > tree of nf-hipac, for some given rule set. I guess this will be somewhat > > slower than nf-hipac, but I'd like to see the performance difference... > > Sorry, but you seem to confuse some things. > nf-HiPAC is not based on B+trees or any other kind of B-trees. So the algorithm of nf-hipac was changed in view of the one you were using in 2003? I remembered from your talk then that you used B+trees and this is confirmed by the slides you've finally put online. cheers, Bart