Ray Mihm wrote:
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.
They WILL be modules. At least we'd LIKE them to become modules.
Hopefully eventually almost everything will be a module.
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]"
