Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:42:45 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPDIVERT Message-ID: <20030430004245.B95389@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20030430143114.A38982@iclub.nsu.ru>; from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 02:31:14PM %2B0700 References: <20030430023640.A22257@iclub.nsu.ru> <20030429200529.GA71528@sunbay.com> <20030430143114.A38982@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 02:31:14PM +0700, Max Khon wrote: > hi, there! ... > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:05:29PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > I have a suggestion to build GENERIC and ipfw.ko with IPDIVERT by default > > > or change IPDIVERT to NOIPDIVERT and build boot kernels with NOIPDIVERT. > > > The main goal is to allow to use NAT with stock kernels and ipfw.ko. ... > AFAIK there is no possibility to add IPPROTO_DIVERT dynamically to > inetsw[]. Some fields of 'struct ipq' are under #ifdef IPDIVERT as well. > ipfw code under #ifdef IPDIVERT are just `case' labels and strings in printf's > (like "ipdivert enabled"). In other words is it really > worth splitting ipdivert into separate .ko module? Changing IPDIVERT to > NOIPDIVERT will be cleaner in my opinion. indeed, i believe we should make the main part of IPDIVERT processing (in ip_input.c, ip_output.c, ip_fw2.c and ip_var.h) non-optional (this would also allow a better realignment of fields in struct ipq) and only make the code in ip_divert.c a module cheers luigi -----------------------------------+------------------------------------- Luigi RIZZO, luigi@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa TEL/FAX: +39-050-568.533/522 . via Diotisalvi 2, 56122 PISA (Italy) Mobile +39-347-0373137 -----------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030430004245.B95389>