From owner-freebsd-questions  Tue Aug 10  1:47:21 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from vax1.baker.ie (VAX1.baker.IE [194.125.50.91])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 442A41527C
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cillian@baker.ie)
Received: from baker.ie ([194.125.50.55]) by vax1.baker.ie with ESMTP;
          Tue, 10 Aug 1999 9:52:25 +0100
Message-ID: <37AFE3F5.E3EE47A1@baker.ie>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:33:57 +0100
From: Cillian Sharkey <cillian@baker.ie>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu>
Cc: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Various Questions
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908091641460.1164-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > when a network interface is put into promiscuous mode, a kernel
> > message is logged ie. "ep0: promiscuous mode enabled" are there plans
> > to log the reverse of this message ie. "ep0: promiscuous mode
> > disabled"..I think this was suggested before in the mailing-lists but
> > did anything come of it ?
> 
> Not that I saw.  Patches would accelerate the process, probably :-)

Patches certainly would.. :)
 
> > can the code for network interfaces be dynamically loded (by loadable
> > kernel modules) when they are needed ? ie. when I run ppp which uses
> > the tun0 interface I need to manually "kldload if_tun" as I don't have
> > tun support included in my (3.2-STABLE) kernel..
> 
> We're getting there.  fxp is now a KLD and I expect more to follow.

Just a more general question about kld's : will the kld mechanism
eventually become more similar to the Linux way (ie. modules for just
about every doohickey that could be compiled into the kernel, and a
mechanism that dynamically loads and _unloads_ them ie.kerneld under
Linux) or something different ?

> > seeing as IPFILTER comes with fbsd now, are there any plans to
> > incorporate it into the conf files ie (/etc/rc.firewall, etc..) in
> > NetBSD they seem to have support for it (ie. in /etc/rc.conf there is
> > a ipfilter=YES|NO ipnat=YES|NO option which use files like
> > /etc/ipf.conf and /etc/ipnat.conf) ?
> 
> Eh?

what I mean is at the moment if I have a (theoretical) rule set in a
file
(say /etc/ipf.conf) for IPFILTER I would (from what I can gather) have
to create my own /etc/rc.firewall to get ipf to read in the ruleset (and
optionally
get ipnat to read in the ipnat.conf ruleset etc.)..

Are thare any plans to either replace ipfw with ipfilter in the future
or to
perhaps give people the option of using one or the other in the conf
files..?
 
> > last question (very trivial): is it possible to change the colour of
> > the kernel messages (in i386 ports, FreeBSD seems to use bright white,
> > NetBSD uses green and OpenBSD uses white on blue I think)
> 
> Not without hacking the kernel printf().

well I might give it a try - it's high time I got my hands dirty and
hacked
some code.. :)

- Cillian


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message