From owner-freebsd-net Tue Mar 4 12:32:55 2003 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 5A92037B401; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:32:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (alpha.siliconlandmark.com [209.69.98.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8BF43F85; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:32:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.siliconlandmark.com (8.12.8/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h24KWnBq021823; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:32:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost) by alpha.siliconlandmark.com (8.12.8/8.12.7/Submit) with ESMTP id h24KWmvE021820; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:32:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:32:48 -0500 (EST) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet To: Vincent Jardin Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of netns In-Reply-To: <200303042025.25227.vjardin@wanadoo.fr> Message-ID: <20030304151638.C59207@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <20030305004730.A13129@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <200303042025.25227.vjardin@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Vincent Jardin wrote: > Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake > as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time, > but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use > NetBSD. If netns has so many users and our implementation has been broken for so long, why is it there hasn't been hordes of complaints? It appears as if users of netns are a rarity... > BSD4.4 was designed in order to support many stacks, FreeBSD 6, 7 ou 9 will > support only IPv4 and IPv6, won't they ? Today, widely-used networking applications use IPv4 and/or IPv6. It's understandable that as such, our IP stacks have gotten more testing and tuning than any other. If there's another networking protocol out there that has enough users interested and enough developer, vendor or device support, I don't see why it wouldn't be incorporated into the FreeBSD tree. A good example of a stack that was recently imported (comparatively speaking) would be Bluetooth. > I do not think that it needs to be removed. One should try to keep this > feature. As always, patches are welcome. If you happen to need netns for anything, scratch the itch... :-) Regards, > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message