svn commit: r253841 - head/sys/netinet6

[Bruce Simpson]

On 01/08/13 17:55, Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2013, at 09:27, Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> Because thay aren't really interfaces. All they need is BPF.
>> There is a cleaner approach described here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2012-December/034031.html
>
> I don't agree with this patch as-is, but I'll need to spend some time writing an email... To be continued later.
>

+1 with Rui here. A few comments.

I would like to see a cleaner approach to the networking data plane, but 
this would need to be considered in some depth. One place to start might 
be the "informational" RFC for the Netlink socket API.

Whilst the gap between BPF and ifnet is acknowledged, there is still a 
place for "virtual" interfaces. Lacking other management mechanisms, the 
ifnet (and its name) ends up being used as a convenient handle.

I have code in development which tries to address more general issues of 
IPvX address dependency by using such an interface.