In message <5ab23fb9.7050...@grosbein.net>, Eugene Grosbein <eu...@grosbein.net> wrote:
>On 21.03.2018 10:55, Matt Joras wrote: >> Saying "Not for FreeBSD" is needlessly confusing and not accurate. In >> the common parlance "raw sockets" does not refer to libdnet, which is >> not a part of the FreeBSD base system. You cannot use traditional raw >> sockets on FreeBSD to receive traditional protocol packets. > >The goal is to send/receive RAW IP packets, not to use raw sockets, isn't it? > >> The only way to do that in the base system is to use a BPF handle directly. > >Not exactly. For example: if_ethersubr.c/ether_input_internal() performs some >sanity checks >then passes incoming frame to BPF and to NETGRAPH (ng_ether) before passing it >to upper stack l >ayers. > >One can do almost anything with the frame by means of NETGRAPH subsystem >and pass it to userland too. One have to setup some NETGRAPH nodes before, >though - >just like ppp(8) does to process control PPPoE frames. OK, so, if I have understood all that has been said in this thread so far, then I would assert that, from the perspective of a simple-minded and naive end user (e.g. me), the assertion that I originally quoted -is- in fact correct, i.e. one -cannot- just simply do sendto/recvfrom (and expect to get back responses) if the raw packets that one sends out happen to be, for example, well formed TCP or UDP packets. If I have correctly understood Matt Joras, there -are- ways to get hold of such reply packets, under FreeBSD, but those require getting a bit more "under the hood" in order to actually get hold of them... more than just a simple recvfrom on the RAW socket. Have I understood correctly? _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
