>> > Isn't libnl PF_NETLINK socket specific? *BSDs use PF_ROUTE sockets >> > which differ from their PF_NETLINK counterparts. >> >> NM's use of libnl and iproute2 will cause portability problems, yes. > > Yeah, though the places are pretty much encapsulated and shouldn't be > too hard to pull out.
Ok. Would you be open to the idea of using a library which abstracts out the various kernel specific gory details (PF_NETLINK, PF_ROUTE, sysctl, ioctl) behind pluggable backends and provides an uniform interface across all platforms? I had been hacking on such a thing for GNU Inetutils, when I started implementing route for them. However I have not yet separated things out in a library, but it is already designed to support pluggable backends. I have been able to implement much of the routing table related features provided by ip(8), but a few remain. The code is just 15 days old and supports only IPv4. I am currently working on BSD support to get a feel of the best way to arrange the backends and the interface. You can have look at the initial code here under the route directory (not yet in any VCS): http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gnu/inetutils-1.5.tar.gz Happy hacking, Debarshi _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
