> * Brian Somers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000120 15:30] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know this is a while in coming, but now that I'm looking at getting
> > ppp(8) to talk IPv6 (with the help of some KAME patches), I've looked
> > at how TUNSLMODE is implemented... it doesn't look good to me.
> >
> > What's the rationale behind stuffing the entire sockaddr in front of
> > the packet ? AFAIK the only information of any use is the address
> > family.
> >
> > By default, OpenBSD has a u_int32_t in front of every packet (I
> > believe this is unconfigurable), and I think this is about the most
> > sensible thing to do - I don't see that alignment issues will cause
> > problems.
> >
> > Alfred, this was originally submitted by you. Do you have any
> > argument against me changing it to just stuff the address family
> > as a 4-byte network-byte-order quantity there ?
> >
> > Any other opinions/arguments ?
>
> No objections, I just did it as an excercise to implement something
> in the manpages.
I think the best plan is if I remove TUNSLMODE and introduce (say)
TUNSIFHEAD. If I reuse TUNSLMODE, I'll bump into all sorts of
problems.
Now if someone was to say ``NetBSD does it this way'' I'd be
interested in copying that :*]
> --
> -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
--
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
