Gleb, as long as you have done enuogh work to evaluate other options (as
you have,)
I have no objection to you committing your original idea.
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:45:53PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Julian,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wr
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:45:53PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Julian,
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> J> I'm not sure they do two different things.. Each represents a place to
> J> send packets.
> J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to
Julian,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> I'm not sure they do two different things.. Each represents a place to
J> send packets.
J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it
J> was attached then you could divert to either in
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it
J> was attached then you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or
J> to userland socket based targets. Currently of you divert to a divert
J>
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:27:47PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> firstly.. I was thinking that there are several good ways to mesh the
J> ipfw/divert/netgraph
J> stuff.
J>
J> Firstly there is the possibility of making the ipfw stuff a netgraph
J> node itself..
Yes, but t
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:27:47PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> firstly.. I was thinking that there are several good ways to mesh the
J> ipfw/divert/netgraph
J> stuff.
J>
J> Firstly there is the possibility of making the ipfw stuff a netgraph
J> node itself..
Yes, but this is a separate nod
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:27:47PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Looks good but I'm not convinced that it needs a whole new keyword of
> we tap in through the divert mechanism.
FWIW, keywords are very cheap and generally quite clean in ipfw2. I'd
be more concerned in ipfw1.
-- Brooks
pgpT
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:06:10PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Dear collegues,
here is quite a simple node for direct interaction between ipfw(4)
and netgraph(4). It is going to be more effective and error-prone
than a complicated construction around divert socket and ng_ks
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:06:10PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Dear collegues,
>
> here is quite a simple node for direct interaction between ipfw(4)
> and netgraph(4). It is going to be more effective and error-prone
> than a complicated construction around divert socket and ng_ksocket[1].
Dear collegues,
here is quite a simple node for direct interaction between ipfw(4)
and netgraph(4). It is going to be more effective and error-prone
than a complicated construction around divert socket and ng_ksocket[1].
The semantics of node operation are quite simple. There is one node
per
10 matches
Mail list logo
