From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 15:00:30 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B931065678 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:00:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) Received: from lakerest.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:240:585:2:203:6dff:fe1a:4ddc]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EB98FC16 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:00:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) Received: from [130.129.95.183] ([130.129.95.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakerest.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAJF0SkH016780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:00:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=lakerest.net; s=mail; t=1227106829; h=Message-Id:From:To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:X-Mailer; b=tkb BoOU7EVyax3LPoN0c8DUGptP4H2CqCnV7SlpVjAS1djMQZfg2tPuc5i35F8SJ7YgW2u SMAJ8QQNHtM1IRIQ== Message-Id: From: Randall Stewart To: freebsd-net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:00:27 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: Subject: Thinking about UDP and tunneling X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:00:30 -0000 Dear All: I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket and have the mbuf chain that arrives for that port be passed in via a function. We use this in our MacOS version of the SCTP stack to do the UDP de-tunneling of SCTP packets. This is becoming a more and more common thing i.e. having transport protocols like SCTP and DCCP be tunneled over UDP to get by NAT's.... this actually sucks that this is necessary .. but it is what it is.... So, I am contemplating adding a similar sort of feature... basically provide an interface in UDP that a consumer (such as SCTP or DCCP) could use to "bind" a port and get UDP packets directly. What do you all think of the idea? That also reminds me.. who owns the ipfw code.. we actually have SCTP nat support that Jason But has done that we need to get in... I would be more than glad to shepherd this in if the owner of the code does not have the time... R ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell) 803-345-0391(direct)