From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 27 08:18:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7987116A4CF; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:18:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CFAE43D1D; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:18:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from 66.127.85.91 ([66.127.85.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1RGIN5D012331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:18:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) From: Sam Leffler Organization: Errno Consulting To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:18:12 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200402260234.i1Q2YDx1014240@repoman.freebsd.org> <565913D0-68E2-11D8-AE91-000A95AD0668@errno.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402270818.12553.sam@errno.com> cc: Max Laier cc: Andre Oppermann cc: Steve Kargl cc: Luigi Rizzo cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Tim Robbins cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/pf/net if_pflog.c if_pflog.h if_pfsync.c if_pfsync.h pf.c pf_ioctl.c pf_norm.c pf_osfp.c pf_table.c pfvar.h src/sys/contrib/pf/netinet in4_cksum.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:18:25 -0000 On Friday 27 February 2004 12:28 am, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Sam Leffler writes: > > I made two attempts to eliminate all the ipfw-, dummmynet-, and > > bridge-specific code in the ip protocols but never got stuff to the > > point where I was willing to commit it. My main motivation for doing > > this was to eliminate much of the incestuous behaviour so that you > > could reason about locking requirements but there were other benefits > > (e.g. I was also trying to make the ip code more "firewall agnostic"). > > The ideal solution would be to convert the entire networking stack to > netgraph nodes; we could then insert filter nodes at any point in the > graph. I consider netgraph a fine prototyping system. I think that using it for t= his=20 purpose would be a mistake. Sam