From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 12 13:42:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA14926 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:42:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14903 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:42:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@pond.net) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by guppy.pond.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA23632 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:38:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:38:19 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White Reply-To: Doug White To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: using raw sockets Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hello! I'd like some info on a more efficient way to talk to a raw Ethernet network. Right now I have an app that's using BPF for this. Transmissions works great but there's a ~1.8s lag between physical packet reception and when they appear on BPF, which is unacceptable for my purposes. And sending regular packets out (ie pings) will keep incoming packets from showing up until the output stream stops. Anyone know of a better way to handle this? Or is it time to hack on bpf? Also, BPF's select() needs work anyway, see kern/9355. Would that be a more productive target? Doug White | Pacific Crest Networks Internet: dwhite@pond.net | http://www.pond.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message