Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:57:33 -0500 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: Paul Traina <pst@jnx.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_input.c ip_output.c Message-ID: <v02140b01ae43bde261ed@[199.183.109.242]>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
In response to the idea:
> > for the hook should be something like:
> >
> > for (hook = iphooks.ipinput.lh_first; hook; hook = hook->next) {
> > if (!(*hook)(IP_INPUT, &m, &ip))
> > break;
> > }
Terry Lamert asks:
> Question: is there any particular reason this should be IP specific?
To which Paul Traina replys:
>Good point. It saves re-doing a lot of work (e.g. protocol classification)
>if you do it in the IP stack, but there's nothing *forcing* it to be IP
>specific.
I suspect that Terry's point was that the hook mechanism need not be ip
specific. Rather, any communications stack, for example appletalk, could
use the same mechanism. I would anticipate that the filters would prefer to
do their "type checking" at registration time and only register for those
protocols that they are prepared to handle.
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v02140b01ae43bde261ed>