From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 01:42:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4444316A4CE for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5723843D48 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:42:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3H8gHQE046637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:42:18 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id i3H8gHcP046636; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:42:17 +0400 (MSD) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:42:17 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20040417084217.GF46266@cell.sick.ru> References: <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:23 -0000 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