Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 00:16:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Remy Nonnenmacher <remy@boostworks.com> To: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: archie@whistle.com, committers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal for ethernet, bridging, netgraph Message-ID: <200005012216.AAA63558@luxren2.boostworks.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000429103407.1309B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 Apr, Robert Watson wrote: > On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Remy Nonnenmacher wrote: > >> On 28 Apr, Robert Watson wrote: >> > >> > Per my comment a little bit ago, please find patches that clean up the >> > bridge/ipfw code a little at: >> > >> > http://www.watson.org/~robert/bridge.patch >> > >> > Because I'm travelling, I haven't had a chance to build or use the code in >> >.... >> >> Nice try Robert, but the topic of the discussion haven't reached the >> bridging code level. Next step. > > On the contrary -- one of the fundamental problems we've been discussing > here is that the layering needs sorting out -- physical layer, link layer, > and above, are all mixed up. We're pushing the bridging and packet > sniffing interaction further up the stack, and as such some interfaces are > changing. As the current bridge code is transparent at the link layer, it > makes sense to me that it would be cleaned at the same time. In fact, in > order that we properly clean the physical/link layer code, we need to > better understand and simplify the bridge code so that we can do the job > right. > My point was that we haven't already decide where does the ether header ripping will take place (either at if_ level or within ether_input()). This will impact the rewriting of the bridging code. RN. IhM 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?200005012216.AAA63558>