Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:35:18 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@cygnus.rush.net>, des@FreeBSD.ORG, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Subject: Warning: ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...) to be depricated.... Message-ID: <200001210835.IAA00404@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:58 GMT." <200001210036.AAA00691@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Unless there are objections in the next day or two, I'm going to deprecate the TUNSLMODE ioctl favour of TUNSIFHEAD. Where TUNSLMODE prepended a sockaddr to each packet, TUNSIFHEAD will instead prepend a 4-byte network-byte-order address family. Jordan, I believe this change should go into 4.0-RELEASE rather than happening afterwards so that we have a minimal number of people (hopefully none) using TUNSLMODE. TUNSLMODE was never MFC'd. Cheers. I wrote (on freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org): > > * Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> [000120 15:30] wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting > > > ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked > > > at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me. > > > > > > What's the rationale behind stuffing the entire sockaddr in front of > > > the packet ? AFAIK the only information of any use is the address > > > family. > > > > > > By default, OpenBSD has a u_int32_t in front of every packet (I > > > believe this is unconfigurable), and I think this is about the most > > > sensible thing to do - I don't see that alignment issues will cause > > > problems. > > > > > > Alfred, this was originally submitted by you. Do you have any > > > argument against me changing it to just stuff the address family > > > as a 4-byte network-byte-order quantity there ? > > > > > > Any other opinions/arguments ? > > > > No objections, I just did it as an excercise to implement something > > in the manpages. > > I think the best plan is if I remove TUNSLMODE and introduce (say) > TUNSIFHEAD. If I reuse TUNSLMODE, I'll bump into all sorts of > problems. > > Now if someone was to say ``NetBSD does it this way'' I'd be > interested in copying that :*] > > > -- > > -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] -- Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org> <http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@OpenBSD.org> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001210835.IAA00404>