On 01/08/13 17:55, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 1 Aug 2013, at 09:27, Alexander V. Chernikov <melif...@freebsd.org> wrote:
Because thay aren't really interfaces. All they need is BPF.
There is a cleaner approach described here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2012-December/034031.html
I don't agree with this patch as-is, but I'll need to spend some time writing
an email... To be continued later.
+1 with Rui here. A few comments.
I would like to see a cleaner approach to the networking data plane, but
this would need to be considered in some depth. One place to start might
be the "informational" RFC for the Netlink socket API.
Whilst the gap between BPF and ifnet is acknowledged, there is still a
place for "virtual" interfaces. Lacking other management mechanisms, the
ifnet (and its name) ends up being used as a convenient handle.
I have code in development which tries to address more general issues of
IPvX address dependency by using such an interface.
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
