Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:35:35 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Implementing IP_SENDIF (like SO_BINDTODEVICE) Message-ID: <41812DE7.7020908@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <m2ekjjtw1b.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> References: <20041027073858.GC719@empiric.icir.org> <417FF6D6.4010201@elischer.org> <20041027195233.GC770@empiric.icir.org> <m2ekjjtw1b.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
George V. Neville-Neil wrote: >At Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:52:33 -0700, >Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > >>On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >> >> >>>>It annoys me that we have to resort to BPF to send IP datagrams on >>>>unnumbered interfaces. Here is a half baked idea. Please look and >>>>tell me what you think. >>>> >>>> >>>I've sent lots of datagrams on un-numberred interfaces using netgraph.. >>> >>> >>I should qualify my post a bit more: I began thinking along these lines >>with the intention of enabling ISC dhcp (and dhclient) to be compiled >>without using bpf support. I don't have the time or interest to port ISC >>dhcp to use netgraph, but I'd be interested to see the results if that >>happened. >> >> >> > >Just one quick question. Does the use of this option require root >privilege? I think it should :-) > netgraph requires root privs to set up a graph.. > >Later, >George >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41812DE7.7020908>