From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jan  4 15:50:46 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA29148
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA29140;
          Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id PAA25483; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <32CEEB76.237C228A@whistle.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 15:44:54 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Organization: Whistle Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
CC: Julian Elischer <julian@freefall.freebsd.org>,
        hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New Networking framework for BSD
References: <199701042305.PAA21612@freefall.freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Darren, see my mail drirectly to you...

you appear to have commented without reading the doc yet..
I'm not trying to replace anything. Just make a framework for such
services as frame relay and ATM, at the LINK level.

I sent you a copy of the overview..
please read it, as I'd like your comments!


Darren Reed wrote:
> 
> I have one _big_ concern with this:
> 
> Currently we have very well known and understood networking code inside the
> kernel which has been around for years and has matured over that time to
> become a very reliable backbone.  Rewriting this (or replacing it) with new
> code will effectively put FreeBSD back many years in so far as being sure
> that it has reliable networking.  Two excellent cases which show this are
> Solaris 2 & Linux (both of which have their own TCP/IP stack as opposed to
> BSD's) and amusingly the BSD socket interface is planned for Solaris 2.6
> for software performance reasons :)
> 
> So, as long as we're prepared to have an "options TESTINET" (or similar)
> for the kernel - which would be mutually exclusive with "options INET" -
> for some years to come, it looks like an interesting idea worth pursuing.
> 
> Darren