From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 4 15:22:43 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 9E18016A4CE for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:22:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693D043D45 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:22:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85A065487 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:22:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 86416-01-2 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:22:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from empiric.dek.spc.org (82-147-17-88.dsl.uk.rapidplay.com [82.147.17.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525EF65414 for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:22:42 +0100 (BST) Received: by empiric.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AA6BF615E; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:22:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:22:41 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20040704152241.GB11170@empiric.dek.spc.org> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Emulating ALLMULTI on broken hardware 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: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:22:43 -0000 I think NetBSD may have a more general solution to the problem of handling the emulation of ALLMULTI on hardware which doesn't support it (such as the PRISM2 wireless cards). Discussion of M_PROMISC (new mbuf flag) here: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2003/03/19/0001.html Perhaps M_PROMISC is a better way of flagging an incoming mbuf as not being for us when running in IFF_PPROMISC? Or an mbuf tag? Ideas? BMS