Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:23:57 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: DIVERT Message-ID: <199608151024.DAA29735@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <32129D22.2C67412E@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Aug 14, 96 08:44:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail from Julian Elischer, sie said: > > No, that isn't quite what divert does.. > divert is a bit more powerful than that > it uses a divert socket type to pass the packets up to the user. > this allows other info to be passed as well.. > the main difference is that you can using the divert socket, re-inject the > packet back at the point that it was taken out, and control to a greater > extent what happens to it.. > > divert sockets are an experiment which may or may not survive > but we have found that they allow us to do things that we couldn't do > using the tunnel interface. > > firstly sockets are inherrently packet oriented, so you can do > 'sendto' on them for example to give different sematics to what > happens to the packet after re-injection. > > there are other problems that are solved by this approach. > we looked at tun interfaces and decided that it was banging a square > peg into a round hole. What was/is the aim of it ? To me it sounds a lot like what screend does, except there is a way to open multiple instances for intercepting packets. Although, I don't quite see how they fit in to the operational scheme of things. > each divert socket can be bound to a differnt port, so you can divert > different packets to different sockets (with tun, how do you do that?) Multiple tun devices ? Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608151024.DAA29735>