On Sun, 2006-15-01 at 21:21 +0100, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Your lack of knowledge about netfilter shows very clearly here.
>
> Again, I never stated that netfilter is a purely functional framework.
> Although my lack of netfilter indeed is unfortunate, it is of no direct
> concern.
>
> > Have you ever tried reading through the Linux routing code path? It
> > doesn't sound like it.
>
> have I ever mentioned the routing code path? That I omitted it in my answer
> to
> John was, however, indeed a mistake. My apologies for that; you get a bit
> shortsighted after looking at the same small domain for months.
>
> That said, I had to compare to STREAMS, which was created for
> kernel/application interaction. It was originally an alternative to sockets,
> not to {pf, netfilter, click}, if I recall correctly. Bashing me for not
> knowing routing is therefore a bit off-topic I believe.
>
Well, if you are doing research you need to know whats out there so
you can a) learn from it b) avoid reinventing the wheel
and more importantly so you can be honest and show the differences.
Otherwise you are blaspheming.
My view:
It doesnt matter whether the packet is coming into the system and
leaving after some forwarding decision or whether it is going to user
space- what matters is the ability to create policies that will graph
how a packet traverses functional blocks. Netfilter does a decent job
at that and so does the tc action code (in both frameworks you can end
up in user space, but that is irrelavant).
In regards to streams: Perhaps you should check why the folks at Sun are
migrating away from it.
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
