Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:31:32 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: raviprasad20@netscape.net Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: daemon rtsol Message-ID: <y7v4rv1nhqj.wl@condor2.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <7D1E2D78.3A910939.9513E96F@netscape.net> References: <7D1E2D78.3A910939.9513E96F@netscape.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:58:49 -0400, >>>>> raviprasad20@netscape.net said: > Sending router solicitations is implemented as a daemon. > Can't this daemon be implemented as a part of the kernel itself & called by the timeout() periodically to send the solicitations. It could be. At the first time rtsol was implemented, it was a single command, which issued only a (limited number of) RS(es). In other words, it was a command like ifconfig(8). The command was then rewritten so that it could also act as a daemon, mainly to support nomadic environments. That was the reason why the command (and daemon) was implemented in the user space. > Whether such an implementation is possible? It's of course possible. It is usually possible to implement any kind of kernel stuff which can be implemented in the user space (the opposite direction is not necessarily true), although it is not necessarily a good idea, of course. > Whether such an implementation effects the performance of freeBSD ip6 stack as a whole. I don't know, but at least I suspect that the kernel implementation would not improve the performance, since sending RSes are not so frequent operation. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 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?y7v4rv1nhqj.wl>