From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 16 22:55:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B095C16A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tigra.ip.net.ua (tigra.ip.net.ua [82.193.96.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0666243D5A for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ru@ip.net.ua) Received: from heffalump.ip.net.ua (heffalump.ip.net.ua [82.193.96.213]) by tigra.ip.net.ua (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3H5xsAr064356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:59:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru@ip.net.ua) Received: (from ru@localhost) by heffalump.ip.net.ua (8.12.11/8.12.11) id i3H5tnKN081942; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:55:49 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:55:49 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Andrew Thompson Message-ID: <20040417055549.GB81778@ip.net.ua> References: <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:55:58 -0000 --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote: > Hi, >=20 >=20 > I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedb= ack. > My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?' >=20 >=20 > The benefits over the current bridge are: > * ability to manage the bridge table > * spanning tree support > * the snazzy brconfig utility > * clonable pseudo-interface (is that a benefit?) >=20 What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality? Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAgMblUkv4P6juNwoRAtXbAKCJI14dl0D9X1E+d34G2WckNFdsngCbBrE1 OO2j0YC01K3xszpN4vZlG80= =EFld -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/--