Date: 14 May 1998 07:13:54 -0500 From: Dave Marquardt <marquard@zilker.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, core@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD Message-ID: <85pvhhhwxp.fsf@localhost.zilker.net> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 00:57:23 -0700" References: <6876.895046243@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> writes:
> > If I remember well, there are at least two WIDE implementations, one
> > kernel-based and one using a user-mode daemon. I've not tried the WIDE ones
> > but the INRIA code is heavily used in France where FreeBSD is one of the
> > most used IPv6 platforms...
> >
> > FWIW IBM has chosen the INRIA as its IPv6 stack for AIX.
>
> Sigh.. If we're to get any further with this, we really really need
> to get out of the realm of the political ("xxx is running our stack!
> We're #1!" :-) and into the realm of the technical. WHY is it better
> than the WIDE stuff? How and where? What are the _specific points of
> comparison_ that we need to be aware of?
Jordan, I agree. As I said, WIDE wasn't available at the time IBM
chose INRIA, so we didn't do that comparison.
-Dave
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?85pvhhhwxp.fsf>