Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:33:07 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?) Message-ID: <20050622053307.B90964@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <42B94023.3090202@suutari.iki.fi>; from ari@suutari.iki.fi on Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 01:40:35PM %2B0300 References: <42B7B352.8040806@suutari.iki.fi> <20050621170649.B82876@xorpc.icir.org> <42B94023.3090202@suutari.iki.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 01:40:35PM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote: > Hi, > > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > i suggest to implement a new action 'setnexthop' which stores the > > next hop as an MTAG with the packet (so it is preserved if the > > packet gets passed to dummynet). > > I took a quick look at how ipfw forward has been implemented. > It seems to use PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD to store routing info. > If I would implement "ipfw setnexthop" with a new MTAG it > would duplicate very much code already present for PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD. yes i think you should reuse the tag, just add a new opcode so that the action is attach the mtag to the mbuf if not there yet (maybe override its content if you believe you could match multiple rules of this type) and then continue processing as in a 'count' action. cheers luigi > If I could reuse the same MTAG this would be easier to add, all > that would be needed is a new opcode for ipfw (or am I missing > something important ?) > > Ari S. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050622053307.B90964>