From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: Place for ipt_ACCOUNT/ipt_NETFLOW Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:20:45 -0600 Message-ID: <4D501BDD.5000108@riverviewtech.net> References: <4D4A6C6A.6000406@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D4B0D7B.5020703@riverviewtech.net> <4D4B8D27.3070306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D4CC630.3050209@riverviewtech.net> <4D4F9735.6080006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D4F9735.6080006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter On 02/07/11 00:54, Srinivasa T N wrote: > This will double the number of rules a packet has to traverse (One rule > for accounting and one rule for accept). Is there are other alternative? I'd have to see an example of your rules to say for sure... I'm using the counters of the number of packets / bytes that are matched by the rule for accounting. I'm not adding any additional rules. Further, you can engineer your rule structure so that the fewest rules / tests per rule are traverse by the largest number of packets. Grant. . . .