Le 20-juil.-08 à 21:49, Julian Elischer a écrit :
Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hi,
A word about the implementation. The interception mechanism for
LISP tunneled packets in ip_input/forward is *horrible*! Some of
that is due to the design, but I believe it can be implemented
much cleaner if y
Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hi,
A word about the implementation. The interception mechanism for LISP
tunneled packets in ip_input/forward is *horrible*! Some of that is due
to the design, but I believe it can be implemented much cleaner if you
were to use the pfil(9) API. I'd really like to a
Hi,
A word about the implementation. The interception mechanism for LISP
tunneled packets in ip_input/forward is *horrible*! Some of that
is due
to the design, but I believe it can be implemented much cleaner if you
were to use the pfil(9) API. I'd really like to avoid putting this
k
On Sunday 20 July 2008 20:33:09 Julian Elischer wrote:
> Luigi Iannone wrote:
> > Hello FreeBSD Networking Community,
>
> hello to you too :-)
>
> > The latter approach is the solution chosen by the proponents of the
> > Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is a router-based
> > solu
Hi,
Le 20-juil.-08 à 20:33, Julian Elischer a écrit :
Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hello FreeBSD Networking Community,
hello to you too :-)
The latter approach is the solution chosen by the proponents of
the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is a
router-based solution to sol
Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hello FreeBSD Networking Community,
hello to you too :-)
The latter approach is the solution chosen by the proponents of the
Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is a router-based
solution to solve the scaling problems of the Internet architecture that
