From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 15:45:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202D01065670 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:45:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DF58FC0C for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:45:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from vampire.homelinux.org (dslb-088-067-228-082.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.67.228.82]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKwtQ-1L2pF921hG-0004C4; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:45:27 +0100 Received: (qmail 80386 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2008 15:45:27 -0000 Received: from fbsd8.laiers.local (192.168.4.151) by ns1.laiers.local with SMTP; 19 Nov 2008 15:45:27 -0000 From: Max Laier Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:45:26 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.10.1 (FreeBSD/8.0-CURRENT; KDE/4.1.1; i386; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811191645.26701.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/lL7HFkv211nPMuGR8NIibLJ9M/RTSYowxu5U CZ1ENglA4I6T4BaVs0tnsdWPVIrSfaNxrzo5Z9g1fbqbZmyWOQ j+yVi4alQPcbGI4axnNZg== Cc: Randall Stewart Subject: Re: Thinking about UDP and tunneling X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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 Nov 2008 15:45:29 -0000 On Wednesday 19 November 2008 16:00:27 Randall Stewart wrote: > Dear All: > > I have been contemplating UDP and tunneling. One of the > things that is a nice feature in MacOS is the ability of > a kernel module/extension to open a kernel level socket > and have the mbuf chain that arrives for that port be passed > in via a function. > > We use this in our MacOS version of the SCTP stack to do the > UDP de-tunneling of SCTP packets. This is becoming a more and > more common thing i.e. having transport protocols like SCTP and DCCP > be tunneled over UDP to get by NAT's.... this actually sucks that > this is necessary .. but it is what it is.... > > So, I am contemplating adding a similar sort of feature... basically > provide an interface in UDP that a consumer (such as SCTP or DCCP) could > use to "bind" a port and get UDP packets directly. > > What do you all think of the idea? What is wrong with the existing socket(9) API? > That also reminds me.. who owns the ipfw code.. we actually > have SCTP nat support that Jason But has done that we need to > get in... > > I would be more than glad to shepherd this in if the owner > of the code does not have the time... "Depends ..." ... for ipfw2 core you might be looking for luigi@, for the libalias stuff: piso@ did the kernel inclusion more or less recently ... other than that: svn log -qr HEAD:\{2006-01-01\} | grep ^r | cut -d"|" -f2 | sort | \ uniq -c | sort in sys/netinet/libalias gives a list of people who touched that code recently (for some definition of recently). I'd be happy to take a look, too ... though I might need some time for a proper review. In general, you touch it you bought it! -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News