On 2/11/11 5:40 AM, Da Rock wrote:
On 02/11/11 19:54, Vlad Galu wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Da Rock
<freebsd-hack...@herveybayaustralia.com.au
<mailto:freebsd-hack...@herveybayaustralia.com.au>> wrote:
On 02/11/11 18:17, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/10/11 11:22 PM, Da Rock wrote:
"In recent versions of the Linux kernel (post-2.0
releases) a new protocol family has been introduced,
named PF_PACKET. This family allows an application to
send and receive packets dealing directly with the
network card driver, thus avoiding the usual protocol
stack-handling (e.g., IP/TCP or IP/UDP processing).
That is, any packet sent through the socket will be
directly passed to the Ethernet interface, and any
packet received through the interface will be directly
passed to the application."
I've been chasing the answer to a FreeBSD version of
this (approx. anyway), but I needed to find out what
exactly PF_PACKET was first. Finally found this answer
here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4659
I looked up man socket and I can see possibilities (in
my mind anyway), but I thought I'd be best to check if
the gurus here might have a better idea. My reason for
this is I'm attempting to build l2tpns (which
supposedly builds on 7.3?! with no trouble), and I'm
chasing the errors which appear to be linuxisms mostly.
So in man socket simply looking at the list of protocol
families I'd say network driver level would be similar
to PF_LINK link layer interface? Is there another man
page I should be looking at as well?
We don't have an exact equivalent.. but we have ways of
doing the same thing.
one way that is suggested is to use pcap and bpf which I am
pretty certain has been enhanced to allow sending as
well as receiving.
you can also hook directly to the interface using netgraph(4)
there are other ways too but those are the two that came to
mind immediately.
So I'm going to have to rewrite that interface entirely?
Bugger! I just can't fathom how this howto could even exist for
l2tpns on FreeBSD if it isn't even close to buildable... weird!
http://kuapp.com/2010/07/14/how-to-setup-l2tpipsec-vpn-on-freebsd.html
Thanks guys. I'll probably come back with more problems as I
slowly crack this one... :)
I suppose you could just use mpd :)
I could, I guess. But where's the fun in that? :)
Seriously, though, mpd didn't quite cut it (I thought) for me. I
need a l2tp vpn server with the capability to handle multiple
clients with only one interface. The server is behind a firewall,
and I'm trying for a "walled garden" variety I guess. So far my
research has brought me here, but I'm open to suggestions.
why do you think you need only one interface?
One other that has my attention is l2tpd (in ports). I want radius
auth, so IF I can use pppd in base and radius (which as I
understand- so far anyway- it needs), and only uses a single
interface, then maybe.
pppd in base will I think give you multiple interfaces..
I'm still hunting and playing- learning on the fly. From what I read
mpd uses an ng interface for every single client. L2tpns doesn't,
and from what I've read so far neither does l2tpd (I was actually
looking at another fork of that xl2tpd). I could use some advice
from someone with experience with this, but my feelers on -questions
didn't get much response. I may try on -net if this fails...
again, whats' with the single interface?
Aside from that I also wanted to get a bit more of a hands on feel
for the FreeBSD core. I can't sit on the sidelines yelling at the
players any more :) I'm not much for spectator sport either...
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
