From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 19 08:45:34 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3846016A4CE for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:45:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.bestcom.ru (relay.bestcom.ru [217.72.144.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5386B43D45 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:45:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (root@cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by relay.bestcom.ru (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0J8jRcW027069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:45:27 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j0J8jQDe005161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:45:27 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j0J8jQ6e005160; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:45:26 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:45:26 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20050119084526.GA5119@cell.sick.ru> References: <20050117200610.GA90866@cell.sick.ru> <20050118183558.GA15150@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41ED8D63.8090205@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41ED8D63.8090205@elischer.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version devel-20050119, clamav-milter version 0.80ff on relay.bestcom.ru X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:45:34 -0000 On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:27:47PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: J> firstly.. I was thinking that there are several good ways to mesh the J> ipfw/divert/netgraph J> stuff. J> J> Firstly there is the possibility of making the ipfw stuff a netgraph J> node itself.. Yes, but this is a separate node. I'm working on a node doing opposite thing, it will allow to filter netgraph traffic using an arbitrary ipfw chain. J> (yes I know there is such a node (based on ipfw-1) out there.) If you are speaking about a node from BWMAN, then it is not based on ipfw. It uses its own filter engine, AFAIK. J> then as for getting stuff out of ipfw, maybe divert itself could be J> changed to be J> a netgraph method. In this way, you'd open netgtraph sockets instead of J> divert sockets. J> J> Alternatively there could be a possibility where netgraph could open J> hooks of a particular number J> and that would be the equivalant of openning a divert hook of that number.. J> J> Looks good but I'm not convinced that it needs a whole new keyword of we J> tap in through the divert mechanism. Divert is a socket, and ng_ipfw is not. We tap thru a direct call to netgraph. I think, divert is designed for userland interaction. It is possible to use it for netgraph (via ng_ksocket), but this adds overhead of passing the socket layer, and I believe not all bugs are caught in this setup. That's why I prefer two different keywords, which do completely different things. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE