Hi Darren,
Thanks for the comments.
>These two requirements conflict with statements later in the design doc.
>On page 4, the document reads:
If I understand this comment are you saying some there needs to be some
additional text to explain although the devices will provide access to
all IP
traffic there are restrictions depending on whether you are in the global or
a non-global zone?
>(that should probably be more than one sentence.)
I'll have a look to see if there's a clean way of splitting it.
>In the table on page 6, for "(2) & !(1)", the comment for "Received"
is misleading. For "(2)" to be satisfied, promiscuous mode must >be
set, so "(2) & !(1)" should simply be "Yes".
Ok.
>Reading the documentation, the hooks framework is intended to be
>used but they feel there is a need to add another, different hook
>than those being proposed for the purpose of filtering packets.
As you know we were going to use the hooks framework and we discussed
this but
then the problem of multiple consumers came up and as you say no good answer
could be found. Given this we (the Clearview team) agreed that it would
best to
implement our own hooks. I agree it would be great if PEF existed or
pfhooks was
a generic framework this isn't the case. I think the thing that really
needs some
detail is why pfhooks couldn't be made generic at this time and I can
certainly
add something to the document, and the PSARC case, to cover this.
Thanks
Phil
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
