From owner-freebsd-net Wed Jan 3 9:25:46 2001 From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 3 09:25:41 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AD237B402 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost) by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23357; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:26:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:26:21 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Pilosov To: "C. Stephen Gunn" Cc: Wes Peters , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problems with VLAN and natd. In-Reply-To: <200101031711.MAA70291@tsunami.waterspout.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, C. Stephen Gunn wrote: > I agree that you could educate ifconfig in the ways of netgraph > and hide it all behind the command interface you propose. It's a > migration to a broader view of interfaces for ifconfig(8). Right > now, ifconfig(8) is basically a front-end for ioctl()'s on a single > network existing interface. Well, with netgraph support it'd be ioctls plus netgraph's messages. I don't think it'd be THAT incompatible or bloated compared to original ifconfig. > The UNIX paradigm is powerful because of many well-made, single-task > tools. In most regards, ifconfig is complete. Adding significant > functionalty causes ripples. For starters, libnetgraph moves into > libstand, and picobsd. Or we could fork ifconfig(8) to have two > variants. Sometimes in the course of human events it is necessary to break with compatibility ;) I believe netgraph is sufficiently advanced and well-made system that it should be used as much as possible. > I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying that it makes me feel > dirty and violated. > > > > > Given their lack of netgraph, and apparent reluctance to implement it, > > that doesn't seem much of a problem at this time. > > Yup. I'd prefer to see FreeBSD take the higher-road and strive to > be compatible and cooperative whenver possible. Instead of continued > isolation, divergance, and proprietization. Hey, I don't even > currently run Net/OpenBSD. ;-) There's nothing that would prevent OpenBSD people from taking netgraph and implementing it. I run OpenBSD, and threw the idea a few times on their mailing lists, and response was less than enthusiastic...Which lead me to choose FreeBSD for my next networking project. :) -alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message