From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jul 3 03:09:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA28216 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:09:44 -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 DAA28196 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:09:38 -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 KAA13889; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:39:37 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199807030839.KAA13889@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: how about including dummynet in 2.2.7 ? To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:39:37 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19980703113450.13615@follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Jul 3, 98 11:34:31 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > The only problem I can see with Luigi's changes is I believe that they > > > will screw the ipfw interface again (right, Luigi?) > > > > depends on what you mean for 'screw up' ... > > I mean that it isn't binary compatible; if somebody compile a kernel > after this change, they'll also have to re-compile ipfw. not a big issue in my opinion -- this interface is not something dozens of program use, and if you reinstall the system you'll get the updated ipfw anyways. I would be really more worried about user-level compatibility issues i.e. syntax for firewall rules etc. > After reading your comments, I'm still not certain if this is the > case. They sounded like they _might_ be implementable without > changing the kernel<->userland interface. > > So - _do_ this break ipfw binary compatibility (apart from people not > being able to use the extensions with the old binaries, of course)? could be, but with some work, and by losing would lose the constant-time jumps which are in my opinion a sufficient reason to give up with backward compatibility, even forgetting the bandwidth management. (the reason is the ipfw struct already fills up completely an mbuf and i need one more field to point to the jump target .) cheers luigi -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message