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 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?
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 -- 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
pgpRGE9MkLwVp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
