From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 17 00:27:53 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 CEEB116A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tigra.ip.net.ua (tigra.ip.net.ua [82.193.96.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2346D43D5E
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:27:53 -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 i3H7VlP7067909
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:31:48 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from ru@ip.net.ua)
Received: (from ru@localhost)
	by heffalump.ip.net.ua (8.12.11/8.12.11) id i3H7RgpC082412;
	Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:27:42 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from ru)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:27:42 +0300
From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Message-ID: <20040417072742.GA82387@ip.net.ua>
References: <20040417055549.GB81778@ip.net.ua>
	<Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170013340.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170013340.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:27:53 -0000


--ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:17:25AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>=20
> > 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 f=
eedback.
> > > 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) functionalit=
y?
> >=20
>=20
> 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=20
> feature..
>=20
> Of course it can't do some of the things that ng_bridge can do either..
> (such as bridging over  VPN)
>=20
Bridging over UDP is more real.


Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov
ru@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer

--ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAgNxuUkv4P6juNwoRAtyrAJ9iyzYpyR3dFzQMqXdIRdDxK1FWcQCeJnZ+
1q8JckHcCG4zEnI0oQ26L/s=
=LmZ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd--