Re: CARP and OUT rules

"Tonix (Antonio Nati)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.security.firewalls.m0n0wall
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Il 08/09/2011 00:26, Chris Buechler ha scritto:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tonix (Antonio Nati)
> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>> Practically speaking instead of several "pass in"
>>
>>    pass in on eth0 proto tcp from any to 100.100.100.100
>>    pass in on eth1 proto tcp from any to 100.100.100.100
>>    pass in on eth2 proto tcp from any to 100.100.100.100
>>    pass in on eth3 proto tcp from any to 100.100.100.100
>>    ...............................
>>    pass in on ethN proto tcp from any to 100.100.100.100
>>
>> it would become simply
>>
>>    pass out on eth5 proto tcp from any to 100.100.100.100
>>
>> This "pass out" rules eliminatex all N rules needed for every incoming
>> interface.
>>
>> So, I feel handling of a rules table 20 times smaller would help a lot rules
>> checking performance.
>>
> That's correct - to an extent. I haven't specifically tested with
> ipfilter and am not extremely familiar with its internals, but the
> more rules you have, the more resources are required to evaluate the
> ruleset. From my testing on other BSD packet filters, it's not really
> relevant unless you're talking about a difference between 50000+ rules
> and a few dozen, it takes an extremely large ruleset to have a
> measurable difference. Even at that, the biggest impact to performance
> is the maximum number of new connections per second achievable, the
> time difference between opening a single connection with 1 rule and
> 100,000 rules is minuscule in the scheme of things in most all
> scenarios.

Thanks Chris for considerations, that makes me feel less guilty when I 
use too much rules :-).

As I told before, main scope is manageability.

Ideally, it would be great to have a two phase FW: first input rules, 
then output rules for survivors. That would cover any need.

But, coming to earth, a general "switch" about "In" or "Out" filtering 
would be enough, and would introduce monowall into big ISP data centers, 
for handling complex situation.

Because monowall is extremely fast and robust, a lot more than any 
comparable product, and speed and robustness are a must for an ISP.
If I have a basic CARP and out rules, with the speed on monowall, I 
don't see any space for other products.

Thanks,

Tonino


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
         Inter@zioni            Interazioni di Antonio Nati
    http://www.interazioni.it      [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.