Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:24:49 -0700 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: CFR: m_tag patch Message-ID: <150501c26e1e$0f5702b0$52557f42@errno.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0210062329200.22932-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What is the relationship between these changes and the KAME
> code? In particular, are they goign to take these
> changes back into Kame? Can you outline the compatibility
> issues, both with KAME, and with NetBSD and OpenBSD, as I know you have
> been looking at OpenBSD?
>
I've looked at many systems: openbsd, netbsd, linux (freeswan), bsd/os and
of course I'm very familiar with commercial systems like irix and solaris.
The m_tag code comes from openbsd. netbsd use aux mbuf's. Not sure what
KAME compatibility means as they do not have an IPsec implementation in
openbsd. The changes I proposed are intended to have the minimum impact to
their source code. In fact these changes should be good for them under
freebsd as it allows some obscure code to be simplified and performance to
improve.
Looking forward, having m_tag support (or something like it) is worthwhile
for improving various bits of freebsd by replacing ad hoc mechanisms such as
those used by dummynet and ipfw. It also is important to me for my IPsec
implementation that uses h/w crypto and for taking advantage of future
developments such as offloading IPsec calculations to NIC's.
I considered a lot of different options and decided the m_tag stuff was a
good way to go. It appears to do what's needed for now and the immediate
future. I'm also keen to promote compatiblity across *bsd systems.
Sam
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?150501c26e1e$0f5702b0$52557f42>