Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:27:42 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <20040417072742.GA82387@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170013340.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20040417055549.GB81778@ip.net.ua> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170013340.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:17:25AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedback. > > > My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?' > > > > > > > > > The benefits over the current bridge are: > > > * ability to manage the bridge table > > > * spanning tree support > > > * the snazzy brconfig utility > > > * clonable pseudo-interface (is that a benefit?) > > > > > What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality? > > > > I'd guess that missing features in netgraph would be > the utility and the fact that NGM_BRIDGE_SET_TABLE_ENTRY > hasn't been implemented. I don't know which of about 50 definitions of > "Spanning tree support" this code implements so that may also be a new > feature.. > > Of course it can't do some of the things that ng_bridge can do either.. > (such as bridging over VPN) > Bridging over UDP is more real. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAgNxuUkv4P6juNwoRAtyrAJ9iyzYpyR3dFzQMqXdIRdDxK1FWcQCeJnZ+ 1q8JckHcCG4zEnI0oQ26L/s= =LmZ/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040417072742.GA82387>