From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 00:46:33 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 AC6BD16A4CE for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ops.tamu.edu (ops.TAMU.EDU [165.91.250.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9402043D4C for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:46:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nipsy@ops.tamu.edu) Received: from nipsy by ops.tamu.edu with local (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BEkWF-000Giv-Ki; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:45:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 02:45:43 -0500 From: Mark Nipper To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20040417074543.GB77469@ops.tamu.edu> References: <20040417060307.GC67219@kate.fud.org.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: Mark Nipper 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 07:46:33 -0000 On 17 Apr 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > 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.. Isn't this part of the problem? Hidden features? I'm all for reading the manual and even going to source if necessary to uncover some little known or even worse, undocumented feature, but it doesn't make those features very accessible to the masses. The OpenBSD bridge interfaces are all well documented and the examples make sense out of just about every situation you would want to use them in. Not to mention the PF integration is virtually flawless. I've heard of people doing pretty much anything and everything via ng, including encapsulating swiss cheese in ethernet frames just for the fun of it. But I don't think anyone is going to claim the ins and outs of ng are straightforward by any means. Having a system which the other BSD's use seems to make good sense. And as long as it is something which is either optional or simply doesn't get in the way, should it really matter if you don't choose to use it? -- Mark Nipper e-contacts: Computing and Information Services nipsy@tamu.edu Texas A&M University http://ops.tamu.edu/nipsy/ College Station, TX 77843-3142 AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617 (979)575-3193 MSN: nipsy@tamu.edu -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL+++$ P--->+++ L+++$ E--- W++ N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--) Y+ PGP++(+) t 5 X R tv b+++ DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---begin random quote of the moment--- "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... Mass hysteria!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray in "Ghostbusters", 1984) ----end random quote of the moment----