From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 13:48:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2D816A4CE; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502B243D2F; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:48:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i28LmKQE068873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:48:21 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id i28LmKHL068872; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:48:20 +0300 (MSK) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:48:20 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20040308214820.GA68803@cell.sick.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Gleb Smirnoff , Ruslan Ermilov , julian@freebsd.org, archie@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <200403072302.i27N2StR008804@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040308102033.GA66247@cell.sick.ru> <20040308212939.GB30394@ip.net.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040308212939.GB30394@ip.net.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/63864: [patch] new control message for ng_iface(4) - getifindex X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:48:24 -0000 On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:39PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: R> > I have one more idea. Currently we have got 3 interface nodes: ng_ether, ng_iface, R> > ng_eiface. 2 of them already support "getifindex" message, imagine I (or someone else) send R> > you patch tomorrow, which adds support to ng_eiface. OK, now all three support. May be R> > in future some new interface nodes will be developed. R> > R> > Imagine the following: you have node, which is connected to some generic R> > interface (it doesn't know which node type exactly). This node wants to R> > determine interface index of attached interfac. It would send 3 "getifindex" messages with 3 R> > different cookies. Two of messages will always fail, and one return. This is not nice. R> > R> > What I suggest: create a new semi-generic cookie NGM_GENERICIFACE_COOKIE, which will be R> > supported by all interface nodes. Put NGM_GENERICIFACE_GETIFINDEX message under R> > NGM_GENERICIFACE_COOKIE case brackets. If you like this idea, please reply me. And I'll send R> > patches. R> > R> How do you think "ngctl msg ng0: getifindex" works? ;) So, you suggest to use ASCII message in situation described above? IMHO, ASCII messages were invented for human interface purposes, not for node interaction. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE