Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:50:57 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet Message-ID: <E863A649-F3A1-4494-9E65-261FFEB92F86@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4968E8B4.9090309@fsn.hu> References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <d763ac660901091411x40eb8084v134f0ab2189afddb@mail.gmail.com> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901101026220.16794@fledge.watson.org> <d763ac660901101012icb544b1v3ff940bd39f1abb6@mail.gmail.com> <4968E8B4.9090309@fsn.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 10, 2009, at 10:28, Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> wrote: > Adrian Chadd wrote: >> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>: >> >> >>> I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option >>> than a >>> socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of >>> portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more >>> compelling. We should make sure that, if we move to the socket >>> option used >>> on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting protocols, >>> or >>> confusion will result. In particular, Adrian's change only >>> modified IPv4, >>> not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it shouldn't be >>> possible to set >>> the option. >>> >> >> I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually >> spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're >> lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and >> the >> actual network behaviour is the same. >> >> (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular >> behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does >> function as advertised.) >> > BTW, I'm eagerly waiting for somebody to implement this transparency > into nginx, which can act as a reverse proxy with built-in perl > logic. :) > That way FreeBSD could be used as a highly flexible transparent > reverse HTTP proxy. > > Do you know anything else which can do that now with an easy API > (accessible from high level languages like perl or python)? I'm not sure why something like an extension with swig wouldn't be the best avenue to solve the high-level language support problem... -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E863A649-F3A1-4494-9E65-261FFEB92F86>