From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Payam Chychi Subject: Re: How Expensive? Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:41:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4C4FDF1E.9050501@gmail.com> References: <4C4F7893.9020900@abpni.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NLyOk+RavhZHubh1PR5Xs8gsP5Bncps6QoiFFKi9MhE=; b=M5gz6IlNJ7sPJISCYf+HUtnIL9BpPo/piy4x1epEczo1Lwl4dSVEZPlSU2CLwy9XIP 28pelGaofsJ294tjyeTL0QxuBJDNV07WDGoM7XeK0aTXUt+2fqG3OmzT9xiSzc9tVTK3 Sq6DXKR79a4WHnXFzp8IJMiSGGwaVqVPWPgx4= In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Jonathan Tripathy , "netfilter@vger.kernel.org" On 10-07-27 11:12 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Wednesday 2010-07-28 03:17, Payam Chychi wrote: > > >> it's much less and actually recommended than running all rules in >> default/less chains as each pkt must traverse the entire chain to be >> processed >> > Packets need not traverse an entire chain! All of -j ACCEPT, -j DROP, > -j RETURN and -g xxx cause an early exit from the current chain in one > way or another. > a packet must traverse an entire chain unless it meets a given condition and as such its better to have more specific chains to jump packet through rather than having to wait until the end of a chain, ie. 1000 line chain. ps, my prevoius reply was suppose to say "its much less overhead to use more chains and actually NOT recommended to run all rules in default/less chains", sorry for the confusion.