Re: IPPROTO_DIVERT and PF_INET6

Julian Elischer wrote:
> actually the divert sockets should really not be in
PF_INET
> they could deliver both inet and inet6 packets.
> the sockaddr that they return (and which needs to be
read for divert
> to make sense) could be used to distinguish between
them.

Good point. I'd forgotten that they were abusing the fields
in sin_zero. 
This is not OK for IPv6, although the kludge can still be
perpetuated by 
looking at sa_len and stashing what divert wants at the end
of sockaddr_in6.

So there IS a case for making them a separate protocol
family if 
someone's going to do a clean implementation of divert
sockets for IPv6.

cheers
BMS

_______________________________________________
freebsd-netfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-net-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>> actually the divert sockets should really not be in
PF_INET
>> they could deliver both inet and inet6 packets.
>> the sockaddr that they return (and which needs to
be read for divert
>> to make sense) could be used to distinguish between
them.
> 
> Good point. I'd forgotten that they were abusing the
fields in sin_zero. 



"they" == "me"  

if we made it its own protocol family we could define our
own sockaddr 
types too and have actual fields for that stuff...


> This is not OK for IPv6, although the kludge can still
be perpetuated by 
> looking at sa_len and stashing what divert wants at the
end of 
> sockaddr_in6.
> 
> So there IS a case for making them a separate protocol
family if 
> someone's going to do a clean implementation of divert
sockets for IPv6.
> 
> cheers
> BMS

_______________________________________________
freebsd-netfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-net-unsubscribefreebsd.org"