Re: Thinking about "branes" for netbsd...

[Dennis Ferguson <dennis.c.ferguson%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 5 May, 2012, at 17:55 , Darren Reed wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> 
>> I'm aware of both of those.  I think you may be confused about
>> what IP_BOUND_IF does (hint: last I looked it only effects
>> where multicasts and broadcasts go).  IP_NEXTHOP does help if
>> you think this is solved by having each application do its
>> own routing (maybe the application could run DHCP to find out
>> the next hop for that interface's default route too); if all
>> applications did this then the kernel could get even simpler
>> by eliminating all forwarding tables.
> 
> You want an application to send a packet back out the same
> interface that the packet was received on. That amounts to
> the application doing its own routing.

See RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2, the Strong ES model.  The routing
operation is well-defined, the application doesn't have to be
aware it is happening, but it needs a routing table per interface
to implement it.

This has reached the point of absurdity, however.  I'm done.

Dennis Ferguson