Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 09:58:58 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPPROTO_DIVERT and PF_INET6 Message-ID: <20080505235858.GB46427@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <481F95DE.6090201@elischer.org> References: <20080503100043.GA68835@k7.mavetju> <m2od7k7e5z.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> <481F6AE1.5020408@elischer.org> <20080505231009.GX44028@k7.mavetju> <481F95DE.6090201@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:18:54PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > Edwin Groothuis wrote: > >On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:15:29PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > >>>This should provide a direct answer to you question of "why"? But I > >>>suspect the underlying question is why divert sockets aren't supported > >>>for IPv6. I don't know why. > >>because no=one has done it and because divert sockaddrs are ipv4 sockaddrs > >> > >>you would have to make a new divert6 protocol. > >>That's not impossible, but no-one has done it. > > > >I've been looking at it, with hints from rwatson@ and bms@, but the > >problem right now lays in the way you can do dynamic protocol > >registrations with IPv4 but not yet with IPv6. Every time when I > >get one step further I end up with a new problem :-( > > > >Let's call it a learning excercise! My adventures are written down at http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/html/00231.html > you could implement a whole new protocol family of which there > was a single protocol.. divert. > so you would open a socket of type. > > sock = socket(PF_DIVERT, SOCK_RAW, DIVPROTO_6); > instead of > > sin = socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_DIVERT); Euhm... that would make my goal more noble but certainly near impossible for me. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080505235858.GB46427>