Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 22:50:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo) Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Will the TEE function of IPFW be ever implemented/necessary ? Message-ID: <199809080550.WAA05485@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199809080338.FAA16903@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> from Luigi Rizzo at "Sep 8, 98 05:38:14 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo writes: > > Luigi Rizzo writes: > > > as the subject says, i was wondering if the TEE function in IPFW > > > will be ever implemented. I cannot see what it can do that would not be > > > possible using bpf, and from the point of view of efficiency also there > > > is no advantage, i think, since you have to copy the packet anyways... > > > > I think it makes sense to have it as an ipfw option.. the only > > problem is that it's just difficult to implement (because the > > divert code writes into the packet before delivery). > > > > Are you saying you want to implement it or get rid of it? :-) > > i'd like to get rid of it because it seems to be just a duplication of > functionality for something which is already available using bpf & > tcpdump. Apart from it being just a placeholder now, i even wonder > what it would be supposed to do... certainly it is not something > that allows you to tap into a TCP connection. I'd prefer that someone implemented it, because a few people have asked for it, but on the other hand if no one is even going to implement it then it might as well go away (if you need the bit for something else, that is). -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809080550.WAA05485>