Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:59:43 -0800 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: "C. Stephen Gunn" <csg@waterspout.com> Cc: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Trimming ether_header before ether_input() Message-ID: <010101bf9430$c8e364f0$0132a8c0@MELANGE> References: <200003220239.VAA01543@dustdevil.waterspout.com> <005301bf9420$a53ebdc0$0132a8c0@MELANGE> <20000322135759.A5013@waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If you're asking, can this still happen; then the answer is it's very
unlikely and it's probably safe to assume the link layer header is
contiguous with the payload. But I haven't touched a BSD network driver in
years so I defer to others.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Stephen Gunn" <csg@waterspout.com>
To: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com>
Cc: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Trimming ether_header before ether_input()
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 09:04:07AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote:
>
> > When all this code was written there was a link layer encapsulation
> > called a trailer protocol that placed the Ethernet header at the
> > end of the packet. I think it's described in the "real BSD book"
> > (the 4.2 one, not a later one :-)); if not there is an RFC that
> > describes it.
>
> Hmm.. I don't have the 4.2 book around... I'm too young for that.
>
> Is it fair to say that while the current implementation is historically
> rooted, but the historical reasons currently apply?
>
> I'll try to work up a patch for this...
>
> - Steve
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?010101bf9430$c8e364f0$0132a8c0>