Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:01:12 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund), jkh@time.cdrom.com, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: how about including dummynet in 2.2.7 ? Message-ID: <199807060101.JAA26195@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 1998 10:00:47 %2B0200." <199807030800.KAA13807@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > The only problem I can see with Luigi's changes is I believe that they > > will screw the ipfw interface again (right, Luigi?) > > depends on what you mean for 'screw up' ... > > Because i needed some space in the structure passed to the ipfw > socket, and this size was limited to one mbuf, I reduced the number > of ports for each rule to 8, and limited the interface name length > to 10 characters. > > The former will go back to 10 if this code has to go in 2.2.7, and > for the latter, does anyone have an interface name longer than 4-5 > chars anyways ? I backported -current's mods to allow setsockopt to take data up to a cluster (~2K) instead of 108 bytes. I'm using a variant of the ipfw packet forwarding stuff (in this case both for transparent proxying and for source address based routing). The IPFIREWALL_FORWARD adds a sockaddr_in to the ipfw structs and takes it way over the limit. I think the setsockopt stuff should be backported. It doesn't change any interfaces itself but makes it a hell of a lot easier to add other things, perhaps at the user's site, or in the base 2.2.x source. Cheers, -Peter 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?199807060101.JAA26195>