At Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:32:29 -0700,
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> Please see my attached game plan.
>
I think it looks like a good plan. Unnumbered interfaces have other
uses than dhclient and it would be good to have clean support for
them.
Later,
George
Looking at http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/20.html I notice a
few differences. Seems to me that a route to one of the peer's other
addresses is going to be needed, and that the supernet example given
there might not work.
pgpiBCuCaIIqA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:41:34PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> ng_device can be attached to "orphans" hook of ng_ether. /dev/ngdX opened
> by dhcpd, and packets processed.
This seems to me like pure configuration overkill. It would require that
people compile and load netgraph to run dhclient, a
George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
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
tel
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
B> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
B> > >It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on
B> > >unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and
B> > >tell me what yo
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
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..
---
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
