svn commit: r186955 - in head/sys: conf netinet

[Garrett Cooper]

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,  
>>> or
>>> 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  
>> the
>> 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...
-Garrett