Point taken about the globals but layer 3 (IP) and layer 4 (TCP, UDP, etc) aren't modules yet and that shouldn't be a problem right? I'm not trying to trivialize or solve the problem here. But my point is, these shouldn't be show-stoppers when you consider the benefit of having this feature in FreeBSD.
Regards, Ray. On 5/9/06, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Mihm wrote: > Using ipfw tables is essentially a non-starter, IMHO. How would > routing protocols use ipfw based tables, for example? Marko's work > touches a lot of files, but I don't think it's heavy weight. > > I also think using Marko's idea and Jails would allow create the > notion of a logical system and multiple such logical systems may be > configured on a single FreeBSD system. > > Regards, > > Ray. Don't get me wrong.. I very much like vimage, and it is a great pitty that it (in the form it is in now) is basically incompatible in concept with freeBSD 5+ (where most things are modules)(*). I've even done some small work on prototyping how one MIGHT be able to make it happen, but for what I want (just be able to have some packets use an alternative routing table), having ipfw fwd them according to a table does just fine. (*) The problem is that moving all globals to a structure only works if you know what globals are linked in. If you load a module, you need to expand the structure. This is problematic to say the least. The same problem has been solved with Thread-local-storage using hooks in the compiler and linker but I don't think we can do that in the kernel. (at least not easily).
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
