From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr 25 07:22:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA12494
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from suw3svr01.hisd.harris.com (suw3svr01.hisd.harris.com [158.147.19.67])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA12480
          Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from suw2k.hisd.harris.com by suw3svr01.hisd.harris.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA15194; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:15:58 -0400
Received: by suw2k.hisd.harris.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA10683; Thu, 25 Apr 96 10:14:08 EDT
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 10:14:08 EDT
From: jleppek@suw2k.hisd.harris.com (James Leppek)
Message-Id: <9604251414.AA10683@suw2k.hisd.harris.com>
To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: could tunnel device do this?
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I did not word my question and therefore my intent very well at all :-)

I really wasn't looking for a tap but more like an intermediate route to a process.
I would like to be able to provide IP security via a user process.
Ideally I would like to be able to push (like streams) a new module into
the network interface.
I guess there is no clean way to do that. :-(
Trying to generate some type of IP-in-IP scheme would still
rely on application level knowledge of another network/packet type. Oh well....
 
Thanks
Jim Leppek

> From gary@palmer.demon.co.uk  Wed Apr 24 17:07:27 1996
> To: jleppek@suw2k.hisd.harris.com (James Leppek)
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
> From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>
> Subject: Re: could tunnel device do this? 
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:09:37 +0100
> Sender: gary@palmer.demon.co.uk
> 
> James Leppek wrote in message ID
> <9604221350.AA06758@suw2k.hisd.harris.com>:
> > This is really a 2 part question:
> 
> > part 1: what would be the best way to route all IP packets from a
> >         ethernet card to a process, I am guessing that the tun
> >         device could do this.
> 
> I don't think you can do this. The `tun' device acts like a normal
> network interface, and has it's own route, etc, so you couldn't just
> dump all the traffic from an ethernet onto it, the packet would have
> to be routed to the i/f. Perhaps the `bpf' device is what you're
> looking for?
>  
> > part 2: what kind of thruput could be expected when doing this? If I had 
> > 	a pentium 166 could it saturate a 10Mbit line? What % of a 100Mbit link
> 
> Dunno ... you were asking in part one about dumping ether -> process,
> not vice versa!
> 
> Gary
> --
> Gary Palmer                                            FreeBSD Core Team Member
> FreeBSD - Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info.
>