Re: PF and "route-to"

[Daniel Hartmeier <daniel@benzedrine.cx>]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:56:18AM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:

> Why not just add another mbuf tag type which is a "pf-routed" tag and just
> call pf_test() from pf_route() ?  Or is that too much overhead to check for
> before calling pf_route() ?  Or is there some other design limitation I'm
> not seeing ?

What would the tag be needed for? To prevent dup-to loops? Otherwise the
slight reentrancy pf_test()->pf_route()->pf_test() wouldn't be much of a
problem, just a question of properly placing the pf_test() call inside
pf_route(), with regard to the route lookup, etc.

I'll try it, you're welcome to send a patch, too :)

Daniel