From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 20 22:20:49 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BD41065673 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:20:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f21.google.com (mail-ew0-f21.google.com [209.85.219.21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD738FC08 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:20:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: by ewy14 with SMTP id 14so1934685ewy.19 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:20:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0Zr+BRSJgBJHieZgxAlNEuDiT7ORCvp4DIMRQRDgtlA=; b=oV5I9de6kvRO3t2H0xsrcCRHSzPRTpk2QwzNpQrrCSARJUENeXoxbHS1y0HjBpU3t8 XYcNHjeUhlUnHURDyHJfuGCfpaW/lFDlcEmXoKjsiE/oWJjPoN5BVcQ+/+dTgUjxIhjP 5/Unoya+bHsFbRclb4vKiKJkW3U4awBRAACWQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=FHx5XhJoW3B1LOPeKvshutii6a/pdeqYZXtIfotE5PPfYW0Q5P0f0ok0szABaR+Oq2 iOoUOCndC7U/qrT5Gw8GtvHSMHEg+NSNQ75GjXmSsMjhQJn0q4yAFndU4D2aA3LY5UfY /GahDSgfU+rNqgSqk7EnpUAj0YRs+ZflNKtws= Received: by 10.210.79.9 with SMTP id c9mr5526554ebb.155.1229811647536; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk [87.81.140.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b33sm23179550ika.17.2008.12.20.14.20.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:20:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:20:43 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20081220222043.5b336ec0@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <1229798135.1583.20.camel@MGW_1> References: <1229788709.1583.16.camel@MGW_1> <20081220172702.B9566@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <1229798135.1583.20.camel@MGW_1> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: martes@mgwigglesworth.com Subject: Re: Network Stack Code Re-write (Possible motivations...?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:20:49 -0000 On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:35:35 -0500 Martes G Wigglesworth wrote: > However, the intuitive list member response strikes again. > > Thanks alot for you input. > > I, as you, can't really figure out why they felt, years ago, that they > needed to re-invent the wheel. Bear in mind that such companies may have a range of products, that range from something not unlike a pc with lots of interfaces up to something with multiple levels of embedded processors each running their own OSes. In the latter case you need a network stack that's largely OS independent, so it can spread itself across the (non-symmetric) processors. You may also need to be able to separate fast-path, slow-path and control path for high performance. Once you have done all that, you've left the native OS stacks unused, leaving them available for the user interface or in some cases communication between sub-systems. This separation is good on security grounds too, it's preferable not to have network management "in-band".