svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet
yanefbsd at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 10:51:10 PST 2009
On Jan 10, 2009, at 10:28, Attila Nagy <bra at fsn.hu> wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org>:
>>> I think Julian's analysis, that this is more of an inet option
>>> than a
>>> socket-layer option, seems more appropriate to me, the benefits of
>>> portability in adopting the API used by OpenBSD/BSDI/etc seem more
>>> compelling. We should make sure that, if we move to the socket
>>> option used
>>> on those systems, we block setting it on non-supporting protocols,
>>> confusion will result. In particular, Adrian's change only
>>> modified IPv4,
>>> not IPv6, so until it's implemented on IPv6 it shouldn't be
>>> possible to set
>>> the option.
>> I'm happy to (eventually) also implement the BSDI API once I actually
>> spend time looking at what the difference in behaviours are. If we're
>> lucky, the only difference is where the socket option hooks in and
>> actual network behaviour is the same.
>> (Meanwhile, I think I have to go off and implement this particular
>> behaviour in Squid, and see if the OpenBSD support indeed does
>> function as advertised.)
> BTW, I'm eagerly waiting for somebody to implement this transparency
> into nginx, which can act as a reverse proxy with built-in perl
> logic. :)
> That way FreeBSD could be used as a highly flexible transparent
> reverse HTTP proxy.
> Do you know anything else which can do that now with an easy API
> (accessible from high level languages like perl or python)?
I'm not sure why something like an extension with swig wouldn't be the
best avenue to solve the high-level language support problem...
More information about the svn-src-head