From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 17 09:12:44 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 9AF0416A41F; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from itchy.rabson.org (mailgate.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0280143D46; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from herring.rabson.org (herring [10.0.0.2]) by itchy.rabson.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9H9CL0v070670; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:21 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) From: Doug Rabson To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <2b22951e0510141758x1edef8jf7caf2514c336514@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510171012.20801.dfr@nlsystems.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (itchy.rabson.org [80.177.232.242]); Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:31 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/1139/Mon Oct 17 01:30:04 2005 on itchy.rabson.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Cai, Quanqing" , Katsushi Kobayashi , freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org, Tai-hwa Liang Subject: Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC? 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: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:44 -0000 The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone else has an objection. On Saturday 15 October 2005 03:35, Katsushi Kobayashi wrote: > Hi, > > Although I don't know the detail of fwe technology, I understand the > technology is a proprietary one. It is better to provide a > compatibility with RFC standard firewire over IP, if some volunteer > are there. > > On 2005/10/15, at 9:58, Cai, Quanqing wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > When I was fixing bug kern/82727: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/82727, I found we > > use fwe(Ethernet over FireWire) in GENERIC kernel, not fwip(IP over > > FireWire). > > But we all know that IP over FireWire is more widely used on other > > OSes, and > > now this bug is fixed, do we need change fwe to fwip? > > > > I talked it with Tai-hwa Liang, he agrees with me. But he suggests > > me to > > post here for more advices, since there might be some > > considerations such > > like backward compatibility or code size that makes re@ made this > > decision. > > > > Please give you advice or opinion. > > > > Best > > Cai, Quanqing > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch- > > unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"