From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 29 11:44:24 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1D437BC75; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:44:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from myevmenkin@att.com) Received: from gab200r1.ems.att.com ([135.37.94.32]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-2.2) with ESMTP id OAA09748; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from njb140bh2.ems.att.com by gab200r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id OAA13021; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:45:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by njb140bh2.ems.att.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:44:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO" To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: NETGRAPH (proposal. FINAL) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:44:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [...] > > This is good in theory, however the intel 82586 ethernet chip > > (and 596 in 586 mode) will overwrite anything you put there anyhow > > as it treats the header specially and fabricates it. > > (unless you are running in some mode that is not usually used). > > I don't know how many other chips do this but it may be misleading > > for the user who sets this on such a chip because the source > > address he sets will not be put on the wire. > > > > The idea is however useful and I guess we'll try add it in > > in the near future... > > What do you think Archie? > > Are we still in code freeze? (I think so). > > Yes, I was going to take a look at this after 4.0-REL and then > commit something hopefully soon thereafter.. > > By the way, if the ethernet chip doesn't support manual source > address then BPF has the same problem that we do.. IMHO, we should > just punt and return an error in this case.. i think we still have this problem in BPF. as far as i know ``bpfwrite'' calls ``if_output'' which is ``ether_output''. in the same time ``ether_output'' updates ``ether_shost''. so, as far as i know, it's imposible to send frame with custom ``ether_shost''. please correct me if i wrong. thanks, emax To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message