From owner-freebsd-net Mon Aug 13 1: 9:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from starfruit.itojun.org (dhcp-227.bakeoff.ipsec.com [130.233.11.227]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BB437B40A for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:09:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by starfruit.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C276E7BA; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:09:29 +0900 (JST) To: Julian Elischer Cc: net@freebsd.org In-reply-to: julian's message of Sun, 12 Aug 2001 10:12:19 MST. <3B76B8F3.1AC69B88@elischer.org> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: IPV6/KAME/protosw integration cleanup From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:09:29 +0900 Message-Id: <20010812200929.C276E7BA@starfruit.itojun.org> 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 >Please note that the ip6protosw is ALSO very broken unfortunately, you are wrong. yes, protosw is supposed to be protocol-independent. however, due to the nature of IPv6 extension headers (you can have infinite number of them) you can blow the kernel stack very easily. therefore, we had to do ip6protosw.h. please read my Usenix paper (on m_pulldown and mbuf issues in BSD IPv6 support) two years ago. itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message