Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 07:48:03 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh <itojun@itojun.org> Cc: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ), net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: v6 issues Message-ID: <l03130300b17f3f6fbce5@[208.2.87.10]> In-Reply-To: <13913.895050361@coconut.itojun.org> References: dag-erli's message of 13 May 1998 10:09:19 %2B0200. <xzpwwbqr3rk.fsf@hindarfjell.ifi.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan Smørgrav ) wrote: >> - The WIDE stack is being developed by a largish group of programmers >> backed by several of the world's largest technology corporations. At 4:06 AM -0500 5/13/98, Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh replied: > It is true that researchers are from some corporations, but that > is not my point. > The key point is is aim of our research project is *to implement > BSD-licensed IPv6 stack*. that's all. > (those corporations MAY bring back the BSD-licensed source code > and put that into routers/whatever) I think that the point that Dag-Erling was making is that your project has a larger resource pool dedicated to it. "group of programmers backed by .. corporations" as opposed to "a single person in a not-for-profit governmental research organisation." Personally, I think that the quality of the backing should not be considered lacking in either case. INRIA is well established and respected. Its backing is more than adequate to assure funding of its effort. As for the quality of the effort, "largish group" and "corporate funding" might work against the effort as much as it helps. Therefore, the only conclusion that I see fitting as that EITHER project is on better grounds that the FreeBSD project itself. We should compare the projects on their technical merits. These comparisons would include technical aspects such as accuracy and speed, and less technical, but important, things such as general compatability with our implementation methodology. I do not think that, at this point, either implementation is clearly superior. Adoption of either would be better than avoiding both. Of course, to the extent that the two implementations can agree on commonality of implementation, we have a "no brainer" in adopting that common component. Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130300b17f3f6fbce5>