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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo