Well I don't care exactly how we do it but we need to
figure out a way of storing such metadata along with packets.
and it needs to be queueable along with the packets..
(sounds like an mbuf to me but if you have a better idea.....)
(and anyhow Garrett got rid of the 'static' uses
of mbufs, not 'travelling' 'per packet' uses..)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:

> Julian Elischer wrote:
> [..]
> > What is needed is obviously a 'per packet' storage location
> > for those things, defined in a "per protocol family" manner.
> > 
> > Luigi has already tried this scheme by defining a 
> > dummynet specific mbuf type that can  be prepended to the 
> > front of packets. What I suggest is to extend this
> > to defining a MT_PROTOSTORAGE. (or similar) mbuf type
> > that generic networking code is educated to ignore,
> > and that protocols can use to pass packet-specific state
> > information from one place to another.
> Uhh.. no thanks.  Whatever you do, do *NOT* abuse the mbuf system
> for this.  We went to a lot of trouble (well, Garrett specifically)
> to rid the stacks of this obscenity.  Do *NOT* generalize it and undo
> it.  MT_DUMMYNET must die, not be propagated elsewhere.
> If you want to have some general storage mechnaism, do *not* use mbufs
> for it.
> Cheers,
> -Peter
> --
> "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to