Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:17:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170013340.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040417055549.GB81778@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedback. > > My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?' > > > > > > 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?) > > > What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality? > I'd guess that missing features in netgraph would be the utility and the fact that NGM_BRIDGE_SET_TABLE_ENTRY hasn't been implemented. I don't know which of about 50 definitions of "Spanning tree support" this code implements so that may also be a new feature.. Of course it can't do some of the things that ng_bridge can do either.. (such as bridging over VPN) > > Cheers, > -- > Ruslan Ermilov > ru@FreeBSD.org > FreeBSD committer >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170013340.66312-100000>