From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Oct 7 9:24:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0223237B401; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8873C43E42; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:24:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g97GOn1H003251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:24:50 -0700 (PDT)?g (envelope-from sam@errno.com)œ X-Authentication-Warning: ebb.errno.com: Host melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82] claimed to be melange Message-ID: <150501c26e1e$0f5702b0$52557f42@errno.com> From: "Sam Leffler" To: "Julian Elischer" Cc: , References: Subject: Re: CFR: m_tag patch Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:24:49 -0700 Organization: Errno Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > What is the relationship between these changes and the KAME > code? In particular, are they goign to take these > changes back into Kame? Can you outline the compatibility > issues, both with KAME, and with NetBSD and OpenBSD, as I know you have > been looking at OpenBSD? > I've looked at many systems: openbsd, netbsd, linux (freeswan), bsd/os and of course I'm very familiar with commercial systems like irix and solaris. The m_tag code comes from openbsd. netbsd use aux mbuf's. Not sure what KAME compatibility means as they do not have an IPsec implementation in openbsd. The changes I proposed are intended to have the minimum impact to their source code. In fact these changes should be good for them under freebsd as it allows some obscure code to be simplified and performance to improve. Looking forward, having m_tag support (or something like it) is worthwhile for improving various bits of freebsd by replacing ad hoc mechanisms such as those used by dummynet and ipfw. It also is important to me for my IPsec implementation that uses h/w crypto and for taking advantage of future developments such as offloading IPsec calculations to NIC's. I considered a lot of different options and decided the m_tag stuff was a good way to go. It appears to do what's needed for now and the immediate future. I'm also keen to promote compatiblity across *bsd systems. Sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message