From owner-freebsd-net  Mon Sep  7 01:57:48 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA11312
          for freebsd-net-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA11306
          for <net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 01:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id EAA15917 for net@freebsd.org; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:45:45 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199809070245.EAA15917@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Will the TEE function of IPFW be ever implemented/necessary ?
To: net@FreeBSD.ORG
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 04:45:44 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Hi,

as the subject says, i was wondering if the TEE function in IPFW
will be ever implemented. I cannot see what it can do that would not be
possible using bpf, and from the point of view of efficiency also there
is no advantage, i think, since you have to copy the packet anyways...

Comments ?

	luigi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message