Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:35:18 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@cygnus.rush.net>, des@FreeBSD.ORG, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Subject: Warning: ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...) to be depricated.... Message-ID: <200001210835.IAA00404@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:58 GMT." <200001210036.AAA00691@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Unless there are objections in the next day or two, I'm going to
deprecate the TUNSLMODE ioctl favour of TUNSIFHEAD. Where TUNSLMODE
prepended a sockaddr to each packet, TUNSIFHEAD will instead prepend a
4-byte network-byte-order address family.
Jordan, I believe this change should go into 4.0-RELEASE rather than
happening afterwards so that we have a minimal number of people
(hopefully none) using TUNSLMODE. TUNSLMODE was never MFC'd.
Cheers.
I wrote (on freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org):
> > * Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> [000120 15:30] wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting
> > > ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked
> > > at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me.
> > >
> > > What's the rationale behind stuffing the entire sockaddr in front of
> > > the packet ? AFAIK the only information of any use is the address
> > > family.
> > >
> > > By default, OpenBSD has a u_int32_t in front of every packet (I
> > > believe this is unconfigurable), and I think this is about the most
> > > sensible thing to do - I don't see that alignment issues will cause
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > Alfred, this was originally submitted by you. Do you have any
> > > argument against me changing it to just stuff the address family
> > > as a 4-byte network-byte-order quantity there ?
> > >
> > > Any other opinions/arguments ?
> >
> > No objections, I just did it as an excercise to implement something
> > in the manpages.
>
> I think the best plan is if I remove TUNSLMODE and introduce (say)
> TUNSIFHEAD. If I reuse TUNSLMODE, I'll bump into all sorts of
> problems.
>
> Now if someone was to say ``NetBSD does it this way'' I'd be
> interested in copying that :*]
>
> > --
> > -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001210835.IAA00404>