From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 21 11:53:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from awfulhak.org (dynamic-33.max4-du-ws.dialnetwork.pavilion.co.uk [212.74.9.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B80E15135; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:53:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12]) by awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14110; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 19:50:59 GMT (envelope-from brian@lan.awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost.lan.Awfulhak.org [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00404; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:35:18 GMT (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200001210835.IAA00404@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999 To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Jordan Hubbard Cc: Alfred Perlstein , des@FreeBSD.ORG, Brian Somers Subject: Warning: ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...) to be depricated.... In-Reply-To: Message from Brian Somers of "Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:58 GMT." <200001210036.AAA00691@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:35:18 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 [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 Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message