Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:53:36 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <4083A1A0.3070301@cronyx.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040417084217.GF46266@cell.sick.ru> References: <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20040417084217.GF46266@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:10:44AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >J> Do we need THREE bridging systems? >J> If you need features you culd probably add them pretty easily to one or >J> the other of the existing bridging modules.. > > Why having three alternatives is bad? We do have ipfw/ipf/pf and everyone >is happy. We do have ppp/pppd/ng_ppp (the latter is useless without mpd) and > > You've forgotten about sppp/ng_sppp (for sync adapters) :-) rik >many people use all of them. > The above question is not about bridges, but it is more general. > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4083A1A0.3070301>