On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:27:47PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> firstly.. I was thinking that there are several good ways to mesh the J> ipfw/divert/netgraph
J> stuff.
J> J> Firstly there is the possibility of making the ipfw stuff a netgraph J> node itself..
Yes, but this is a separate node. I'm working on a node doing opposite thing, it will allow to filter netgraph traffic using an arbitrary ipfw chain.
J> (yes I know there is such a node (based on ipfw-1) out there.)
If you are speaking about a node from BWMAN, then it is not based on ipfw. It uses its own filter engine, AFAIK.
J> then as for getting stuff out of ipfw, maybe divert itself could be J> changed to be
J> a netgraph method. In this way, you'd open netgtraph sockets instead of J> divert sockets.
J> J> Alternatively there could be a possibility where netgraph could open J> hooks of a particular number
J> and that would be the equivalant of openning a divert hook of that number..
J> J> Looks good but I'm not convinced that it needs a whole new keyword of we J> tap in through the divert mechanism.
Divert is a socket, and ng_ipfw is not. We tap thru a direct call to netgraph.
I think, divert is designed for userland interaction. It is possible to use it for netgraph (via ng_ksocket), but this adds overhead of passing the socket layer, and I believe not all bugs are caught in this setup. That's why I prefer two different keywords, which do completely different things.
I'm not sure they do two different things.. Each represents a place to send packets.
If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it
was attached then you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or
to userland socket based targets. Currently of you divert to a divert
'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped.
If a divert socket is attached to it, it is sent ot teh socket.
I would just suggest that is not a great leap of imagination that
attaching to a hook named 3245 would attach a netgrpah hook to the ipfw
code in the sam enamespace as the divert portnumber, and that a
subsequent attempt to attach a divert socket to that port number woild
fail. The packets diverted there would simply go to the netgraph hook
instead of going to a socket or being dropped.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
