modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Waldemar Kornewald
Hi, are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? Would it be difficult to modularize it? I am also interested in your opinion about it: Does it make sense to modularize the netstack? Why would a monolithic/modular netstack be better? We at Haiku are

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Roman Kurakin
Hi, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: Hi, are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? You mean smth like (device driver)+ng_cisco+ng_iface or what? rik Would it be difficult to modularize it? I am also interested in your opinion about it: Does it make sense to

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Waldemar Kornewald
Hi, Roman Kurakin wrote: are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? You mean smth like (device driver)+ng_cisco+ng_iface or what? Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. Just about everything as modules. Bye,

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Max Laier
On Wednesday 06 October 2004 17:19, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: Hi, are there any plans to mularize the netstack (maybe: protocol+interface modules)? Would it be difficult to modularize it? One problem you will hit here, is that you will have to do a lot of additional locking for structures

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:57:14 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. Just about everything as modules. It is not generally regarded as a good idea to make artificial boundaries between (e.g.) IP

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Petri Helenius
Garrett Wollman wrote: On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:57:14 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. Just about everything as modules. It is not generally regarded as a good idea to make artificial

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread Barney Wolff
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:30:43PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote: Garrett Wollman wrote: On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:57:14 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc. Just about everything as

(forw) Re: kern/72396: Incorrect network accounting with aliases.

2004-10-06 Thread Alfred Perlstein
I submitted a PR with a patch, but I think there may be a better fix, any ideas? -Alfred - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: kern/72396: Incorrect network

Re: modularization

2004-10-06 Thread George V. Neville-Neil
At Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:23:17 +0200, Max Laier wrote: Given the additional locking requirements and the additional checks, lookups and function calls I hardly believe that it is a good idea. There might be protocols that are easily plugged, but you can certainly do them at the netgraph layer

kernel arp log message

2004-10-06 Thread Muhammad Reza
hi, i have a problem in a FreeBSD server, Kernel message show this message; arp: [ip redhat firewall gateway] moved from [1st nic redhat firewall gateway] to [2nd redhat firewall gateway] on fxp0 arp: [ip redhat firewall gateway] moved from [2nd nic redhat firewall gateway] to [1st redhat