From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 20 16:37: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from awfulhak.org (dynamic-71.max4-du-ws.dialnetwork.pavilion.co.uk [212.74.9.199]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E09153D8; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 16:36:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12]) by awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA12004; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:58 GMT (envelope-from brian@lan.awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost.lan.Awfulhak.org [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00691; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:58 GMT (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200001210036.AAA00691@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999 To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Brian Somers , des@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: ioctl(... TUNSLMODE ...) In-Reply-To: Message from Alfred Perlstein of "Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:35:02 PST." <20000120153502.A14030@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:36:58 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > * Brian Somers [000120 15:30] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting > > ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked > > at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me. > > > > What's the rationale behind stuffing the entire sockaddr in front of > > the packet ? AFAIK the only information of any use is the address > > family. > > > > By default, OpenBSD has a u_int32_t in front of every packet (I > > believe this is unconfigurable), and I think this is about the most > > sensible thing to do - I don't see that alignment issues will cause > > problems. > > > > Alfred, this was originally submitted by you. Do you have any > > argument against me changing it to just stuff the address family > > as a 4-byte network-byte-order quantity there ? > > > > Any other opinions/arguments ? > > No objections, I just did it as an excercise to implement something > in the manpages. I think the best plan is if I remove TUNSLMODE and introduce (say) TUNSIFHEAD. If I reuse TUNSLMODE, I'll bump into all sorts of problems. Now if someone was to say ``NetBSD does it this way'' I'd be interested in copying that :*] > -- > -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] > -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message