From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 30 00:42:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C7D37B401; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E429943F3F; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3U7gkBp098223; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) id h3U7gkhc098222; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:42:45 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Max Khon Message-ID: <20030430004245.B95389@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20030430023640.A22257@iclub.nsu.ru> <20030429200529.GA71528@sunbay.com> <20030430143114.A38982@iclub.nsu.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030430143114.A38982@iclub.nsu.ru>; from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 02:31:14PM +0700 cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPDIVERT X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:42:47 -0000 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 -----------------------------------+-------------------------------------