From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb 22 13:56:11 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com (kcmso1.att.com [192.128.133.69])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7321537B6FF; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:56:00 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from myevmenkin@att.com)
Received: from mo3980r1.ems.att.com ([135.38.12.14])
	by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-2.2) with ESMTP id QAA02931;
	Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:55:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njb140bh1.ems.att.com by mo3980r1.ems.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2)
	id QAA24003; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:51:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: by njb140bh1.ems.att.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <F3XKY2WR>; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:55:28 -0500
Message-ID: <E598F159668DD311B9C700902799EAF4473396@njb140po01.ems.att.com>
From: "Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO" <myevmenkin@att.com>
To: "'Archie Cobbs'" <archie@whistle.com>
Cc: "'freebsd-current@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
	"'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: RE: NETGRAPH patches (proposal)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:55:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


> > Here is the description. ng_ether node has two hooks ``divert'' and
> > ``orphan''.
> > It is possible to connect to the one of the hooks and 
> intercept row Ethernet
> > frames. But there is no clean way to intercept frame, do 
> something and
> > return it back to kernel.
> > 
> > This patch provides additional hook ``divertin'' (mmm... 
> name is not good,
> > i think) for each ng_ether node. 
> > 
> > Implementation issues
> > 
> > This will not work for ``orphan'' frames. Since kernel 
> drops it anyway, i
> > decided to leave it as it is. But is is possible to 
> intercept ``orphan''
> > packets, change it, and write back to ``divertin''.
> 
> The "divertin" hook is a useful idea.. after 4.0-REL we can check
> something in based on your patches...
> 

ok. i just have a dumb question. what is the big deal with updating
ether_shost
in ethernet header in ngether_rcvdata. since we are passing raw ethernet
frame,
why should we update ether_shost?  wouldn't it be nice to make it optional? 
just another control message?

Thanks,
emax



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