Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:42:17 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <20040417084217.GF46266@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 many people use all of them. The above question is not about bridges, but it is more general. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040417084217.GF46266>