Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 07:20:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/63317: make ng_ether(4) support "lower" and "orphans"simultaneously Message-ID: <200404261420.i3QEK5gt018284@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/63317; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> Cc: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>, bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/63317: make ng_ether(4) support "lower" and "orphans"simultaneously Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:53:23 -0500 (CDT) Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > A> So just to make sure I understand: the new semantics of having both > A> hooks connected is that lower gets all packets and orphans would not > A> see any packets unless packets are also written into the upper hook > A> (e.g., if the node connected to lower "passes through" to upper). > > No. Lower gets all packets which in normal way would travel into upper > protocol stack. Orphans gets all packets which in normal way would be > discarded. Nothing depends on behavior of the node connected to lower. > > The functionality of hooks does not change at all. The new behavior is > the same as in current manpage: > > The lower hook is a connection to the raw Ethernet device. When con- > nected, all incoming packets are diverted out this hook. > > The orphans hook is equivalent to lower, except that only unrecognized > packets (that would otherwise be discarded) are written to the hook, and > normal incoming traffic is unaffected. > > The only difference is that the sentence > > At most one of orphans and lower may be connected at any time. > > is not the truth anymore. Let me be more specific. Suppose both lower and orphans are connected. A packet is received from the Ethernet hardware with ethertype 0x1234 (i.e., unrecognized). Which hook(s) (lower and/or orphans) does that packet get written to? Then: same question applied to a packet received from the upper hook. -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404261420.i3QEK5gt018284>