From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jan  6 14:54:09 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA07248
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA07235
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA27893; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:57:43 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970106175249.00a7c100@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 17:52:51 -0500
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: New Networking framework for BSD
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

T. Lambert writes...

>> An issue to consider is that you dont need a new framework...virtual
>> interfaces solve the problem without changing anything...
>
>I really disagree with this... virtual interfaces cross protection
>domains, and that's a problem... as much of a problem as moving the
>network stack to user space (as some have suggested in research
>projects trying to address these issues).

I dont know what you're talking about here...perhaps your concept of
virtual interfaces is not the same as our implementation. There
are no such problems, or should there be, if done properly.


dennis