Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:44:15 -0500 From: "Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO" <myevmenkin@att.com> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: NETGRAPH (proposal. FINAL) Message-ID: <E598F159668DD311B9C700902799EAF44733A0@njb140po01.ems.att.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[...] > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E598F159668DD311B9C700902799EAF44733A0>