From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jan 25 10:50: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.interware.hu (mail.interware.hu [195.70.32.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567B337B6AD for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from victoria-221.budapest.interware.hu ([195.70.63.221] helo=elischer.org) by mail.interware.hu with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian)) id 14LrSq-0005uf-00; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:49:44 +0100 Message-ID: <3A707539.60091940@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:49:29 -0800 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" Cc: Archie Cobbs , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: status of bridge code References: <4.3.2.7.0.20010124185058.00ac5100@mail.drwilco.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20010125000221.00b07d60@mail.bsdchicks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" wrote: > > >personally I use the netgraph bridging code and I think (though I'm biased) > >that you should look at using htat rather than the hardwired bridging > >code that it was derived from. > > Now that I've read up on it I can tell you you and and Archie have every > right to be biased =) > > I've had a netgraph bridge in place for a while now and it works very well. > (On 4.X-STABLE, on 5.X-CURRENT it went kablooie. See panic trace) where is it? (have you tried it REALLY recently?) > > > > item on my list. Being an allround good networking OS this is unacceptable > > > IMHO. > > > >Have a look at what you can do with netgraph first. > > > >Most people don't know what it is but it allows almost arbitrarily > >complicated network topologies to be set up from the command line. > > What you might want to tell people is that it allows networking structures > to be setup in a simple manner, but is so powerful it can also be used for > immensely complex structures. A friend and fellow BSD user of mine's first > response was "I like to keep things simple". After I rephrased into the > above he was much more interested. > > But from my list of wishes I'd say the first 3 are gone. All that's left is > spanning tree. I'm probably going to need this pretty soon, so once more > I'm asking if anyone is working on it. If not I'll start on it. > > Also, a quick question for you netgraph guys. Why is it that ng_one2many > send a packet only out of one hook? I can see use for an algorithm that > sends packets from the 'one' hook to all the 'many' hooks (that are up) and > keep the normal behaviour for many to one. > > DocWilco -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ---> X_.---._/ from Perth, presently in: Budapest v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message