Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:41:34 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Implementing IP_SENDIF (like SO_BINDTODEVICE) Message-ID: <20041028114134.GC50262@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20041027195233.GC770@empiric.icir.org> References: <20041027073858.GC719@empiric.icir.org> <417FF6D6.4010201@elischer.org> <20041027195233.GC770@empiric.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Bruce M Simpson wrote: B> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: B> > >It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on B> > >unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and B> > >tell me what you think. B> > B> > I've sent lots of datagrams on un-numberred interfaces using netgraph.. B> B> I should qualify my post a bit more: I began thinking along these lines B> with the intention of enabling ISC dhcp (and dhclient) to be compiled B> without using bpf support. I don't have the time or interest to port ISC B> dhcp to use netgraph, but I'd be interested to see the results if that B> happened. ng_device can be attached to "orphans" hook of ng_ether. /dev/ngdX opened by dhcpd, and packets processed. What is benefit to get rid of bpf? What is problem with it? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041028114134.GC50262>