Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 09:55:10PM -0500, James wrote: > J> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:06:41PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > J> > Back to this problem: > J> > > J> > http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-net_2004/msg01305.html > J> > > J> > I've found two more people who dislike this feature of gif(4). > J> > So I'd like to make it optional. > J> > > J> > We already have LINK2 flag removing sourceroute filter from gif(4), > J> > which is commonly used in asymmetrically routed networks. I suggest > J> > to use this flag also for disabling route cacheing, since asymmetricity > J> > often appears in dynamically routed networks, and if one runs dynamic > J> > routing, he probably wants to remove route cacheing, too. > J> > J> I'd think we should create a separate option for removing the route > J> cache. Sometimes, certain people want to use the tunnel at the highest > J> maximum performance possible with both sourceroute filter disabled > J> and tunneling routes allocated at their creation time. Perhaps link3 is a > J> good place for this option? > > There is no LINK3 flag :) > > However, gif(4) does not use LINK0 flag. It was used in past. We can utilize > it now. Any objections?
IMO you should scrap it altogether. However there have been reasons for storing the rtentry pointer in struct gif. In the old days ip_output() required an rtentry pointer to be passed on, this is no longer the case. And it was sort of a safe-guard to make it harder to send the gif encapsulated packets back through the same gif interface. That didn't work really well and as I say it should be scapped instead of rigged on somewhere else with yet another obscure option. ;) -- Andre _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
