multicast packets from bpf

[Bruce M. Simpson]

Christian S.J. Peron wrote:
> I think that tap(4) is a bit different since the only kind of frames it
> handles are Ethernet.

As Andrew points out the tapwrite check probably isn't needed now.

>   This is not the case for bpf(4).  I wonder if it
> makes sense to add this check into ether_output()? IIRC bpf will call
> the network interface's output routine, in the Ethernet/bridge case it
> should be ether_output().
>   

This approach avoids touching the device-independent paths, and, 
providing the check resides in the AF_UNSPEC case (as ARP resolution 
should do the right thing) is reasonably neat.

But it doesn't handle the case where there are link-layer netgraph nodes 
between bpf and if_bridge, something which the first change would deal with.

regards
BMS