UDP catchall

[Matus Harvan]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 07:49:47PM +0000, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> 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...

My initial understanding of a raw IP socket was that I could simply
receive any packet for a particular protocol. This almost works for
ICMP, but TCP and UDP don't seem to be supported. Hence, I have
perceived the patch also as a natural extension of the idea of a raw
IP socket for the UDP protocol.

Matus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/attachments/20071031/07b5f77d/attachment.pgp