Re: UDP catchall

Brooks Davis wrote:
While I think this idea has some merit, I think we specifically want
the current wildcard ability to allow for a system that requires
minimal configuration. The problem with a range is that it doesn't
allow disjoint sets and it requires that if you really do want all the
ports you need to produce a list of currently allocated ports to avoid
allocating. A more (over)engineered solution holds some attraction, but
I'm not yet convinced the fact that it could exist precludes the current
implementation.

Actually I concur with you on this point, based solely on the disjoint sets point.

Another vector of attack would be to put the relay functionality into PF, which can do the packet matching. However this of course suffers from the problem that if you just want a plain old UDP socket for mtund, you won't get that unless you go to the inpcb layer anyway.

But who says mtund needs to use sockets for its traffic relay? There is definite appeal in *not* doing it in the socket layer at all -- an adaptation of pf's log socket may suffice...

Just my 2c for now...
BMS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: UDP catchall
    ... minimal configuration. ... ports you need to produce a list of currently allocated ports to avoid ... Actually I concur with you on this point, based solely on the disjoint sets ... adaptation of pf's log socket may suffice... ...
    (freebsd-net)
  • Re: UDP catchall
    ... Actually I concur with you on this point, based solely on the disjoint sets ... adaptation of pf's log socket may suffice... ... but TCP and UDP don't seem to be supported. ... IP socket for the UDP protocol. ...
    (freebsd-net)