From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 29 08:51:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFEB16A41C for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:51:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from postfix4-1.free.fr (postfix4-1.free.fr [213.228.0.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254F643D49 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:51:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by postfix4-1.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4BD31812D; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:51:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 836D1405B; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:51:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:51:18 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20050629085118.GD48704@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <42C0DB3B.6000606@elischer.org> <200506281409.23885.max@love2party.net> <200506281415.36453.net@dino.sk> <200506281437.11835.max@love2party.net> <42C1A204.1040504@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42C1A204.1040504@elischer.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: Max Laier , Milan Obuch , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Julian's netowrking challenge 2005 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:51:08 -0000 Hi Julian, > We already chaned the mbuf from 128 to 256 bytes a while ago, so having > more in the > header is not necessarily a bad thing.. it generally wasn't a problem > when it was only > capable of holding 100 or so bytes of data. Even with an expanded header > we are still > talking of holding up to 200 or so bytes of data in the mbuf. > > I'd like to propose an expandable format for mbufs... > Pitty I'm about 25 years too late. > > [header1][total headerlength] > [offset to first tag] > [more header info] m_data-------\ > [tag1] [tag1 len] | > [tag1 data] | > [tag2] [tag2 len] | > [tag2 data] | > [end of header] | > ... | > packet data <-------------------/ > ... > [end of mbuf] I think I understand what you are proposing here, but what do you have in mind that would require such a system ? If there is no really good reason, I think it is wise to keep it simple. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >