From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 10 18:28:11 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64EF41065674; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:28:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bra@fsn.hu) Received: from people.fsn.hu (people.fsn.hu [195.228.252.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2EE8FC18; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:28:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bra@fsn.hu) Received: from [172.27.51.2] (fw.axelero.hu [195.228.243.120]) by people.fsn.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02028A7A01; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:28:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4968E8B4.9090309@fsn.hu> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:28:04 +0100 From: Attila Nagy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd References: <200901091602.n09G2Jj1061164@svn.freebsd.org> <4967A500.30205@fsn.hu> <4967B6D9.90001@elischer.org> <4967C539.2060803@fsn.hu> <49686A30.4000205@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: X-Stationery: 0.4.8.12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (people.fsn.hu [0.0.0.0]); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:28:07 +0100 (CET) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , Julian Elischer Subject: Re: svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:28:11 -0000 Adrian Chadd wrote: > 2009/1/10 Robert Watson : > > >> I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option than a >> socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of >> portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more >> compelling. We should make sure that, if we move to the socket option used >> on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting protocols, or >> confusion will result. In particular, Adrian's change only modified IPv4, >> not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it shouldn't be possible to set >> the option. >> > > I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually > spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're > lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and the > actual network behaviour is the same. > > (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular > behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does > function as advertised.) > BTW, I'm eagerly waiting for somebody to implement this transparency into nginx, which can act as a reverse proxy with built-in perl logic. :) That way FreeBSD could be used as a highly flexible transparent reverse HTTP proxy. Do you know anything else which can do that now with an easy API (accessible from high level languages like perl or python)?