Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:08:04 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/bce if_bce.c src/sys/dev/bge if_bge.c src/sys/dev/em if_em.c src/sys/dev/ixgb if_ixgb.c src/sys/dev/nfe if_nfe.c src/sys/dev/nge if_nge.c src/sys/dev/re if_re.c src/sys/dev/stge if_stge.c src/sys/dev/ti if_ti.c src/sys/dev/txp ... Message-ID: <450DAB24.6060107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <450D8CA1.4020704@elischer.org> References: <200609171333.k8HDXUht029746@repoman.freebsd.org> <450D8CA1.4020704@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > As I mentioned before, I am slightly uncomfortable with the > implementation of this > change as it puts protocol specific items into the protocol > independent mbuf header. > The fact that 99.99% of network traffic coming in and out of a > machine uses this protocol > at the the moment makes it understandable but if in 2 years a new > transport mechanism sweeps > the world for which this is irrelevent, or worse, has a different > requirement for similar fields, > are we going to add fields for that too? should this be defined as a > link layer specific union for > which we can add future variants? This argument seems a case of putting the cart before the horse -- it's a bit up in the air. If anything Ethernet is more likely to increase in popularity, and it is the most common use case. Particularly so, given that VLAN encapsulation is specified for 802.1p priority tagging, and there is more and more interest in L2 QoS because of VoIP. Kudos to Andre for sorting it out. Regards, BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?450DAB24.6060107>