any guidance choosing between “Legacy Stack” and libbsd? I’ve got a 512MB of RAM processor, so I expect that I’ll have lots left over. But that is TBD.
A > On 2021-February-01, at 15:21, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org > <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:03 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org > <mailto:ged...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:42 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: > On 2/2/21 8:32 am, Mr. Andrei Chichak wrote: > > Is there any advantage to using bsd networking over LWiP, or vice versa? > > They are different stacks with different feature sets and different hardware > resource demands. I am not familiar with the features of LwIP so I am not the > best person to compare them. > > The BSD stack has most of the features you get with FreeBSD. It has IPv4, > IPv6, > IPsec, VLAN, bridging, dhcp, openssl, lots of routing alternatives, packet > filtering and more. It has a range of useful commands including tcpdump. > > The BSD based system provides a solid base to solve a range of networking > issues > your RTEMS device may encounter at the system level and not at the low level > programming level. > > The BSD stack uses a lot more resources to do all this and LwIP may be a > prefect > fit. I welcome RTEMS being able to support a range of networking solutions. > > > I have a student (Vijay) working on refactoring libnetworking out of RTEMS, > and will be testing ability to compile legacy vs libbsd. If the lwip build is > demonstrated and clear, I can have him also look at bringing that into the > fold. This is in line with https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850 > <https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850> > > One thing to be aware of is that all the POSIX networking header files for > RTEMS are in newlib and always present. I had to address this and lwip when > we did Deos+RTEMS. Deos uses lwip as their native stack running in a > partition and other partitions use a client to get to it. The lwip constants > had values that were not the same as the RTEMS BSD headers for POSIX defines. > There were also some places where the structure definitions did not align. I > had to write a bit of mapping in the client. When lwip works at all, it would > be awesome to have a way for it to ignore their own minimal POSIX API files > and build against ours. > > This would be similar to how the newlib headers define a very complete POSIX > API set but each target OS may only support a subset of it. > > As it is, I wonder if there is a conflict between the RTEMS newlib network .h > files and those provided by lwip which could cause issues. > > > We have no certain timeline yet, but it is now work-in-progress. We will > bring to devel when progress is made. If we do lwIP too, we will aim to do a > performance analysis with real hardware, so that we can hopefully provide > evidence to help these kind of questions. > > -Gedare > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users > <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users>_______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users > <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users> --------------------- Andrei Chichak 4024-120 STREET EDMONTON, ALBERTA T6J 1X8 CANADA Phone: 780-434-6266 Skype: andrei.chichak
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
