Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:57:53 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) andnetgraph(4) Message-ID: <41EEBBC0.3040908@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20050119123426.GA7825@cell.sick.ru> References: <20050117200610.GA90866@cell.sick.ru> <20050118183558.GA15150@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41ED8D63.8090205@elischer.org> <20050119084526.GA5119@cell.sick.ru> <41EE2933.4090404@elischer.org> <20050119093608.GA5712@cell.sick.ru> <41EE3361.8D27FF5B@freebsd.org> <20050119123426.GA7825@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: >A> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >A> > J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it >A> > J> was attached then you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or >A> > J> to userland socket based targets. Currently of you divert to a divert >A> > J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped. >A> > J> If a divert socket is attached to it, it is sent ot teh socket. >A> > J> I would just suggest that is not a great leap of imagination that >A> > J> attaching to a hook named 3245 would attach a netgrpah hook to the ipfw >A> > J> code in the sam enamespace as the divert portnumber, and that a >A> > J> subsequent attempt to attach a divert socket to that port number woild >A> > J> fail. The packets diverted there would simply go to the netgraph hook >A> > J> instead of going to a socket or being dropped. >A> > >A> > I understand your idea now. I'll work in this direction. >A> >A> I like Julian's idea. And if you look at the mtag's the only thing that >A> is extracted is the rule number for divert, dummynet and netgraph (your >A> patch). Ideally this should be merged into one tag if possible and not >A> an architectual hack. > >When writing node, I was thinking about merging this into one tag. However, I >expected negative response to this idea, from other developers. > >Anyone else agree that these tags should be merged? > which tags exactly? > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41EEBBC0.3040908>