From owner-freebsd-net Wed Mar 1 14:10:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F8737C2C8 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:10:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA65176; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:10:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:10:27 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200003012210.RAA65176@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Archie Cobbs Cc: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman), julian@elischer.org, ales@megared.net.mx, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GRE Support in 4.X ??? In-Reply-To: <200003012131.NAA71857@bubba.whistle.com> References: <200003012104.QAA64880@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200003012131.NAA71857@bubba.whistle.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < said: > What is your opinion about adding GRE support to the kernel? > I.e., should we do it and if so how should it work? > Should a process "bind" to a specific protocol? Should certain > protocols that are already defined (like the above encapsulation) > be handled automatically? Etc.. Yes. I wouldn't be unhappy to see most of the work handed off to netgraph modules if you can make it work that way instead, rather than hard-coding everything. (This seems like the sort of task that netgraph is well-suited for; in order to do anything useful with these packets we're already so far off the fast path that ILP is a distant fantasy....) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message