At Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:52:33 -0700,
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > >It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on
> > >unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and
> > >tell me what you think
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on
> >unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and
> >tell me what you think.
>
> I've sent lots of datagrams on un-numberred interfaces using ne
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:12:33PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> If we are interested in tracking this down, we should add a printf,
> so that people who hit this will notce it and report.
> Otherwise this problem will be left forever in a workaround state.
That's what revision 1.109 was for, but
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on
unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and
tell me what you think.
I've sent lots of datagrams on un-numberred interfaces using netgraph..
---
Bruce,
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:41:26PM -0700, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
B> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:31:59AM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
B> > Log:
B> > Check that rt_mask(rt) is non-NULL before dereferencing it, in the
B> > RTM_ADD case, thus avoiding a panic.
B>
B> PR: kern/42030
B>
It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on
unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and
tell me what you think.
Adding IP_SENDIF (like Linux's SO_BINDTODEVICE) support to FreeBSD.
Clean up the RFC 1724 hack in ip_output.c
TODO:
Add IP_SENDIF processing
