Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:57:33 -0500 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: Paul Traina <pst@jnx.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_input.c ip_output.c Message-ID: <v02140b01ae43bde261ed@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to the idea:
> > for the hook should be something like:
> >
> > for (hook = iphooks.ipinput.lh_first; hook; hook = hook->next) {
> > if (!(*hook)(IP_INPUT, &m, &ip))
> > break;
> > }
Terry Lamert asks:
> Question: is there any particular reason this should be IP specific?
To which Paul Traina replys:
>Good point. It saves re-doing a lot of work (e.g. protocol classification)
>if you do it in the IP stack, but there's nothing *forcing* it to be IP
>specific.
I suspect that Terry's point was that the hook mechanism need not be ip
specific. Rather, any communications stack, for example appletalk, could
use the same mechanism. I would anticipate that the filters would prefer to
do their "type checking" at registration time and only register for those
protocols that they are prepared to handle.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v02140b01ae43bde261ed>