Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:58:26 -0500 From: "C. Stephen Gunn" <csg@waterspout.com> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, luigi@FreeBSD.ORG, remy@boostworks.com, pavel@alum.mit.edu, nsayer@sftw.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal for ethernet, bridging, netgraph Message-ID: <20000426145826.A1209@waterspout.com> In-Reply-To: <200004261619.JAA58836@bubba.whistle.com>; from archie@whistle.com on Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 09:19:52AM -0700 References: <390690B8.4487EB71@elischer.org> <200004261619.JAA58836@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 09:19:52AM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: > OK, new version of the patch.. > > ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/archie/misc/net.cleanup.patch.3 I've got some "operational" questions on the new ether_input(). I promise not to mention trimming or not trimming the header in this message. (whoops!) I think the Bridge/BPF code should happen after we check the interface for IFF_UP, and before the NG_DIVERT action. I question the validity of calling bdg_forward() on packets that are received on an interface that isn't IFF_UP|IFF_RUNNING. For instance, when I "ifconfig <int> down", I expect the interface to not show me any traffic whatsoever. I also think that the IFF_UP check should be modified to also check IFF_RUNNING like this: /* Discard packet if interface is not up */ if (ifp->if_flags & (IFF_UP|IFF_RUNNING) != (IFF_UP|IFF_RUNNING)) { m_freem(m); return; } I don't have a good feel on the interface statistics. Personally I expect to see the counters get incremented for _any_ packet received on an interface. - Steve 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?20000426145826.A1209>