Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:57:51 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> 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: <20050119165751.GA19365@odin.ac.hmc.edu> 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
--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 03:34:26PM +0300, 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 t= o 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 d= ivert > A> > J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is droppe= d. > 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 th= e 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> >=20 > A> > I understand your idea now. I'll work in this direction. > A>=20 > A> I like Julian's idea. And if you look at the mtag's the only thing th= at > 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. >=20 > When writing node, I was thinking about merging this into one tag. Howeve= r, I > expected negative response to this idea, from other developers. >=20 > Anyone else agree that these tags should be merged? Off the top of my head, I don't like the idea. What are the savings in doing so? Is there a guarantee that you won't need more then one at once? -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB7pGPXY6L6fI4GtQRAv9qAKCgW946odXT0iE2uvbwnU6F3TPjhACeLnJA b0OqmI8OV+7AKpUAz2D3U/U= =W24P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050119165751.GA19365>