[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freebsd-hackers
Subject:    RE: NETGRAPH (proposal. FINAL)
From:       "Yevmenkin, Maksim N, CSCIO" <myevmenkin () att ! com>
Date:       2000-02-29 19:44:15
[Download RAW message or body]



[...]
> > This is good in theory, however the intel 82586 ethernet chip
> > (and 596 in 586 mode) will overwrite anything you put there anyhow
> > as it treats the header specially and fabricates it.
> > (unless you are running in some mode that is not usually used).
> > I don't know how many other chips do this but it may be misleading
> > for the user who sets this on such a chip because the source 
> > address he sets will not be put on the wire.
> > 
> > The idea is however useful and I guess we'll try add it in 
> > in the near future...
> > What do you think Archie?
> > Are we still in code freeze? (I think so).
> 
> Yes, I was going to take a look at this after 4.0-REL and then
> commit something hopefully soon thereafter..
> 
> By the way, if the ethernet chip doesn't support manual source
> address then BPF has the same problem that we do.. IMHO, we should
> just punt and return an error in this case..

i think we still have this problem in BPF. as far as i know ``bpfwrite''
calls ``if_output'' which is ``ether_output''. in the same time
``ether_output'' updates ``ether_shost''. so, as far as i know,
it's imposible to send frame with custom ``ether_shost''.
please correct me if i wrong.

thanks,
emax


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]