From owner-freebsd-net Sun Jul 21 8:21:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F5437B400 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nomadic.glarp.com (adsl-40-55-bs1.tiscali.ch [212.254.40.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219D643E72 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 08:21:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from huntting@nomadic.glarp.com) Received: from nomadic.glarp.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadic.glarp.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6LFLHlI058202 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:21:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from huntting@nomadic.glarp.com) Message-Id: <200207211521.g6LFLHlI058202@nomadic.glarp.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: multicast forwarding overhaul From: huntting@glarp.com Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:21:17 +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In the process of implementing Automatic Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels (URL below), I've discovered that the multicast routing code really cant be used for multicast routing algorithms based on bidirectional shared trees (PIM-B, BGMP, CBT, IGMP Proxy, etc). So, before I start rewriting ip_mroute.c or implementing some crazy netgraph nodes that only work for this particular problem: Does anyone have any thoughts on the future direction of FreeBSD's (or *BSDs) packet forwarding architecture? Is the Linux routing architecture worth trying to emulate (or simulate)? Can (should) netgraph nodes be used for IP forwarding? How? brad The AMT draft can (for the next 5 months or so) be found at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-01.txt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message