From owner-freebsd-ipfw Thu Aug 15 14:39:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF3737B409 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7800943F75 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020815212007.POZQ11061.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:20:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28310; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: new mbuf flag bit needed In-Reply-To: <20020815121002.D30190@iguana.icir.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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