Subject: Re: [MEXT] binary filters draft 0

From: Christian Kaas-Petersen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:30:11 +0000 (GMT)

Fine.  Please put "packing efficiency" somewhere in the text.

Christian

--- Den tirs 5/5/09 skrev George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>:

> Fra: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
> Emne: Re: [MEXT] binary filters draft 0
> Til: "Christian Kaas-Petersen" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Dato: tirsdag 5. maj 2009 10.29
> >  * Section 3.1.  Address ranges are specified by a
> single address and
> >   a prefix, whereas port ranges are specified from
> low to high.
> >   I guess the motivation for this, is that addresses
> will most often be
> >   a single address (MIP) or a prefix (NEMO).  I like
> to have such design
> >   rationales mentioned in the document.  The traffic
> selectors of IPsec
> >   prefer address ranges from low to high value, and
> this document could
> >   have followed what IPsec is doing.
> >
> 
> GT> The reason for the difference is simply packing
> efficiency. If we
> do IP address range with a from/to, we will end up with
> 2x32 or 2x128
> as opposed to 32+1 or 128+1 which is how it is now. For
> port numbers
> from/to did not seem that bad since they are only 2bytes
> each. Does
> that make sense?
> 

      Find din nye laptop på kelkoo.dk. Se de gode tilbud her - http://dk.yahoo.com/r/pat/mm