Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:49:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: sos@FreeBSD.org To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, fenner@parc.xerox.com, sos@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_input.c ip_output.c Message-ID: <199608220749.JAA06215@ra.dkuug.dk> In-Reply-To: <321C0DAE.695678E2@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Aug 22, 96 00:35:11 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Julian Elischer who wrote:
>
> sos@FreeBSD.org wrote:
> >
> > These hooks are for a kernel level impl. of NAT which to my best judgement
> > belongs in the kernel.
> and we think it belongs out of the kernel..
> this way we can both have our way..
Exactly..
> (of course we are also using the divert stuff for packet encryption etc.
> as well.)
Ahh, maybe I should do one of those too.. :)
Actually what I would have liked, was one function ptr, that one could
grap, and redirect, eventually chain to what was there before, plus maybe
some kind of registering functionality. THat way firewall, NAT, divert
whatever code could have been kept out of the ip files.
But the gods intended it differently :(, or could we now get to
some higher level agreement on how to do this, or should we just
go our own ways (as usual)..
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
So much code to hack -- so little time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608220749.JAA06215>