Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:15:00 +0900 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: Waldemar Kornewald <Waldemar.Kornewald@web.de> Subject: Re: modularization Message-ID: <m2acuz2xkr.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <200410061823.24492.max@love2party.net> References: <41640CEE.9070900@web.de> <200410061823.24492.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:23:17 +0200, Max Laier wrote: > Given the additional locking requirements and the additional checks, lookups > and function calls I hardly believe that it is a good idea. There might be > protocols that are easily plugged, but you can certainly do them at the > netgraph layer as well. Netgraph is a interesting thing to look at in any > case, when talking modularity. One other model to look at is The Click Modular Router, which is about modularizing the routing part of the code, as opposed to the end station code. Look at http://www.xorp.org because Click, and FreeBSD are in there. I have always thought that a network protocol toolkit would be a good thing, but admit that I have never had time to do the required work on our stack. It would take a lot of reworking to get it right, as others have pointed out already. But... If you do it, I want to know about it :-) Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2acuz2xkr.wl>