Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 23:52:51 +0100 From: "Thomas Gielfeldt" <thomas@gielfeldt.dk> To: "Archie Cobbs" <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: MPD + NETGRAPH and BRIDGING Message-ID: <001c01c2cd69$4ff10190$7f01000a@undercover> References: <200302051832.h15IWLCW058446@arch20m.dellroad.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >Instead of using MPD, it might be simpler to bridge via UDP packets. > > >E.g. combine ng_bridge with ng_ksocket. You could secure this via IPSec. > > > > Okay, thanks. But won't I still have to use MPD? You see the reason I'm > > using MPD in the first place is to connect a windows client. I can see that > > W2K and WXP can use IPSec, but it still uses PPP as far as I remember. > > But does Windows PPP support PPP bridging? I didn't think so. > I believe that is irrelevant. The tun-device simulates two nics connected as far as I understand. Only the endpoint on the freebsd machine needs to be bridged, not the one on the client side. At least I can see all traffic on a tcpdump on the tun-device, even broadcasts. I would want mpd to handle the tunneling traffic for me, and then instead of sending the data to/from the tun-device (ng0), it could send it to an ethernet device (eg. tap0). That way I could not assign an ip-address to the tap-device, but use it for bridging instead. But perhaps what I'm suggesting is a hack? /Thomas > -Archie > > __________________________________________________________________________ > Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com 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?001c01c2cd69$4ff10190$7f01000a>