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 to 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 divert A> > J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped. 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 the 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> > A> > I understand your idea now. I'll work in this direction. A> A> I like Julian's idea. And if you look at the mtag's the only thing that 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.
When writing node, I was thinking about merging this into one tag. However, I expected negative response to this idea, from other developers. Anyone else agree that these tags should be merged? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
