Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:31:51 +0100 From: Bruce Simpson <bms@fastmail.net> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r253841 - head/sys/netinet6 Message-ID: <52022217.50709@fastmail.net> In-Reply-To: <A664BEC8-6EC5-49AD-AC1A-FA1CB0603925@FreeBSD.org> References: <201307311624.r6VGOob5022079@svn.freebsd.org> <20130801142324.GG20104@FreeBSD.org> <97527D06-7783-4441-BA50-702DEE0B9076@FreeBSD.org> <51FA8C73.4070808@FreeBSD.org> <A664BEC8-6EC5-49AD-AC1A-FA1CB0603925@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/08/13 17:55, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 1 Aug 2013, at 09:27, Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> Because thay aren't really interfaces. All they need is BPF. >> There is a cleaner approach described here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2012-December/034031.html > > I don't agree with this patch as-is, but I'll need to spend some time writing an email... To be continued later. > +1 with Rui here. A few comments. I would like to see a cleaner approach to the networking data plane, but this would need to be considered in some depth. One place to start might be the "informational" RFC for the Netlink socket API. Whilst the gap between BPF and ifnet is acknowledged, there is still a place for "virtual" interfaces. Lacking other management mechanisms, the ifnet (and its name) ends up being used as a convenient handle. I have code in development which tries to address more general issues of IPvX address dependency by using such an interface.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52022217.50709>