Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:53:36 +0400
From:      Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru>
To:        Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge
Message-ID:  <4083A1A0.3070301@cronyx.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20040417084217.GF46266@cell.sick.ru>
References:  <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20040417084217.GF46266@cell.sick.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:10:44AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>J> Do we need THREE bridging systems?
>J> If you need features you culd probably add them pretty easily to one or
>J> the other of the existing bridging modules..
>
>  Why having three alternatives is bad?  We do have ipfw/ipf/pf and everyone
>is happy. We do have ppp/pppd/ng_ppp (the latter is useless without mpd) and
>  
>
You've forgotten about sppp/ng_sppp (for sync adapters) :-)

rik

>many people use all of them.
>  The above question is not about bridges, but it is more general.
>
>  
>





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4083A1A0.3070301>