UDP catchall

[Bruce M. Simpson]

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