Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: new mbuf flag bit needed Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0208151403010.27476-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020815121002.D30190@iguana.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:49:41AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > ... > > > The problem with protocol-specific bits is that you'll end up > > > overloading them, and once you pass the packets to a multi-protocol > > > module (such as netgraph, or ipfw2) you are in trouble. > ... > > protocols should not expect to store flags there on packets that cross a > > protocol boundary. > > yesh but then you rely on those protocols cleaning up the flags > after they are done with it. Which does not always happen in real > life, e.g. one of the comments to motivate the use of M_PROTO1 > is that "somewhere mbuf headers are not properly initialized and > rcvif might contain junk" > > > it would be for passing state around within a single protocol family.. > > such as you suggest. > > So, i do _not_ want a protocol-specific bit because the info i need > is not protocol-specific and goes to a non-protocol-specific module. how does ipfw2 connect with appletalk? it really IS a protocol specific hack.. > > cheers > luigi > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0208151403010.27476-100000>