* 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
