On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:09:08AM +0900, itojun@iijlab.net wrote:

 > >support out of mrouted(8) completely, use `gif' interfaces exclusively to
 > >configure the tunnels, which should work using mrouted.conf's `phyint'
 > >keyword.
 > >...this would certainly clean up some code that is in desperate need
 > >of cleaning up.
 > 
 > 	are you sure that mrouted is the only customer of vif?  i'm not
 > 	an multicast (specifically, v4) expert, but there could be someone
 > 	using it, so i thought that rewriting ip_mroute.c is better than
 > 	rewriting mrouted.

Well... I looked again, and vifs are used for non-tunnels, as well... but
it should certainly be safe to eliminate the VIFF_TUNNEL cases from
ip_mrouted.c.

I guess there could be an rsvpd or a pimd that uses the vif stuff, and
possibly gated, as well.  But it should be safe to simply not use the
tunnel configuration mechanisms in any of those (if they exist).

 > 	I can think of two differences (maybe more):
 > 	- m->m_pkthdr.rcvif will be different
 > 	- sanity check logic is different (gif is more strict)
 > 	other than those, they should work okay even if we configure the
 > 	same address pair for vif and gif.

Yes, in the case of `gif', rcvif is *correct* :-)  I.e. it would actually
be possible to do sane filtering w/ multicast tunnels...

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>