From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 19 19:57:55 2005 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 4D2BF16A4CE; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:57:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34E343D1F; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:57:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from elischer.org (julian.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.97]) by mail.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6237B7A403; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:57:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41EEBBC0.3040908@elischer.org> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:57:53 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030516 X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <20050117200610.GA90866@cell.sick.ru> <20050118183558.GA15150@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41ED8D63.8090205@elischer.org> <20050119084526.GA5119@cell.sick.ru> <41EE2933.4090404@elischer.org> <20050119093608.GA5712@cell.sick.ru> <41EE3361.8D27FF5B@freebsd.org> <20050119123426.GA7825@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050119123426.GA7825@cell.sick.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Andre Oppermann cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) andnetgraph(4) 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: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:57:55 -0000 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: >A> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >A> > J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it >A> > J> was attached then you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or >A> > J> to userland socket based targets. Currently of you divert to a divert >A> > J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped. >A> > J> If a divert socket is attached to it, it is sent ot teh socket. >A> > J> I would just suggest that is not a great leap of imagination that >A> > J> attaching to a hook named 3245 would attach a netgrpah hook to the ipfw >A> > J> code in the sam enamespace as the divert portnumber, and that a >A> > J> subsequent attempt to attach a divert socket to that port number woild >A> > J> fail. The packets diverted there would simply go to the netgraph hook >A> > J> instead of going to a socket or being dropped. >A> > >A> > I understand your idea now. I'll work in this direction. >A> >A> I like Julian's idea. And if you look at the mtag's the only thing that >A> is extracted is the rule number for divert, dummynet and netgraph (your >A> patch). Ideally this should be merged into one tag if possible and not >A> an architectual hack. > >When writing node, I was thinking about merging this into one tag. However, I >expected negative response to this idea, from other developers. > >Anyone else agree that these tags should be merged? > which tags exactly? > > >