From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 00:24:50 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 6BA0216A4CF; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1311E43D54; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:24:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040417072443016003fsfse>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:24:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA71880; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:24:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Andrew Thompson In-Reply-To: <20040417060307.GC67219@kate.fud.org.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 07:24:50 -0000 On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:55:49AM +0300, 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 didnt know about that one, people looking to make or port "neat" network features would do well to first learn about all the existing features, including netgraph which has so many hidden features that you can just about re-impliment several standard network features using it.. > I guess the main advantage is that all three > *BSDs would have the same code and interface. While I imported it from NetBSD, > it originated in OpenBSD. Thats assuming anyone cares about that sort of > thing. > ng_bridge allows you to bridge to things other than interfaces.. e.g. You can bridge 2 ethernet interfaces and a UDP tunnel and have the other end of the tunnel bridged back to ethernet. e.g. en1----+ +---- en2 [ng_bridge]--[UDP]-------[UDP]----[ng_bridge] en3----+ +---- en4 > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >