From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 24 14:47:32 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A0616A41F for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:47:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2E843D49 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:47:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 44819 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2005 14:20:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.54]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 24 Sep 2005 14:20:55 -0000 Message-ID: <43356702.6B558B4A@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:47:30 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Max Laier References: <200509241525.16173.max@love2party.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bridges X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:47:32 -0000 Max Laier wrote: > > All, > > for some time now, we have three bridge implementations in the tree: > - net/bridge.c - the "old" bridge > - net/if_bridge.c - the "new" bridge from Net/OpenBSD > - netgraph/ng_bridge.c - the netgraph version [1] > > The new code has several advantages over the old version: > - Spanning Tree Protocol (802.1D) > - better firewall support (IPv6, stateful filtering, ...) > - easy ifconfig(8) configuration > > while keeping all the functionality that was present in the old code: > - dummynet support > - IPFW L2 support [2] > > There have been some benchmarks that suggest that there isn't a performance > issue either, but more numbers are always appreciated. If it turns out that > there is any remaining problem with if_bridge we need to fix it. If you are > running an old bridge on 6.0-BETA try moving to the new code and let us know. > > This means the old code is obsolete. In order to keep code duplication down > and not hinder further development (Andre is working on an overhaul of [2] > and would have to do it twice, for example) I would like to retire the old > bridge code soon. This should happen in HEAD only and thus the old bridge > will stay for all of FreeBSD 6 unless more aggressive depreciation is > requested. > > Please test the new alternative if you are using the old one still. Let us > know if there are any issues remaining. > > Objections against soon retirement of bridge.c in HEAD? No objection. if_bridge has surpassed net/bridge.c in features. There is no compelling reason to carry two bridge implementations forward. It only creates a unnecessary maintenance burden. -- Andre