Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:30:06 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>, ales.cerri@tiscali.it, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: arp rewrite... Message-ID: <475ED72E.9000200@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <475ED25C.2000204@elischer.org> References: <475E4C45.2050206@elischer.org> <20071211004853.A51465@xorpc.icir.org> <305C539CA2F86249BF51CDCE8996AFF408FC5B14@bcs-mail2.internal.cacheflow.com> <475ED25C.2000204@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > Li, Qing wrote: >> Last time when I sent an email to net@ for comments, I >> received only limited feedback. >> The New ARP code in my home directory on FreeFall and was >> lasted updated on June-8-2007. It was based on then CURRENT >> (7.0) and was tested to be working fine at >> that time. A bit more work would be necessary in locking >> though. I asked for code review and folks to play with it. >> Again, the feedback was really scant. >> The code is accessible at >> http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/newarp-06-08-2007/ >> >> The question I asked then was "should I move forward?" >> >> I'd be more that happy to resume and be done with it. > > I think that breaking the arp code from the routing code > need to proceed. > > I see no reason to not have reference counted links from the routes to > the arp code (for optimisation and compat reasons), > but it should be self standing. > > I'll look at what you have.. it looks very good. (could do with a few more comments :-) What I'm trying to do in my current project is add limited support for multiple routing tables into 6.x or at latest 7.x I have a 'low impact' version that gives "limited" support. //depot/user/julian/routing/src/sys/... (userland utility not in p4 yet) i.e. you can select from a small number (defined at compile time) of tables for ipv4 only.. it will do for my purposes, but should have little impact on the API/ABI. in -current the requirement for ABI compatibility is not there so I can do proper rewrite. Which I think would include a rewrite of the arp code. I like what I see in the code you have done.. It's a bit hard reading you code as patches, is it in P4? > > >> >> -- Qing >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org >>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Luigi Rizzo >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:49 AM >>> To: Julian Elischer; ales.cerri@tiscali.it >>> Cc: FreeBSD Net >>> Subject: Re: arp rewrite... >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:37:25AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> I believe Qing-li (Sp?) did an arp rewrite.. >>> the story is a bit longer - Andre drafted the initial design, which i >>> subsequently took over and with a student, Alessandro Cerri, (I am >>> Cc-ing him) did a first implementation. This was probably around 2003. >>> >>> Then Qing-li (Sp?) took over development of that code - last i heard >>> of the code was around last summer. >>> >>> I think our code at least was based on 4.x so it probably did not >>> address locking very much (not sure how the routing code is locked >>> these days, anyways). >>> >>> Alessandro is actually around again playing with FreeBSD so he may >>> remember more details (it was his thesis, after all!) >>> >>> cheers >>> luigi >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?475ED72E.9000200>