On Wed, 2006-29-03 at 13:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-29-03 at 11:14 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote: > > [..] > > > > A digression: One of the problems of the bridge in my opinion is having > > STP, a control protocol, inside the kernel. I do hope someone with time > > will rip it out of the kernel some day. > > I looked into it, but the size of STP is less than the amount of stuff > needed to make it have the control hooks in user space.
I think thats a fine trade-off. The advantage of putting it in user space is its a lot easier to add newer features. The current STP - by virtue of being in the kernel - is missing a lot of newer developments. > Plus there would be a lot of new race issues to deal with. If there are races it only goes further to prove there's a serious problem continuing to keep it in the kernel. The only thing that really oughta stay in the kernel is the state machine - perhaps extended to allow multiple trees per bridge. 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
