From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 06:01:07 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 0B16B16A4CE; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA9C43D41; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:01:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3HD10gd061727; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:01:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3/Submit) id i3HD10Lx061721; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:01:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:00:59 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <20040417060059.A50118@xorpc.icir.org> References: <40810F83.2030107@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <40810F83.2030107@freebsd.org>; from andre@freebsd.org on Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:05:39PM +0200 cc: Julian Elischer 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 13:01:07 -0000 On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:05:39PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: ... > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, 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?' ... > This if_bridge would replace the current bridge(4) code. It doesn't make >From the diff it seems not to interfere at all with the existing bridge(4) code, so both can coexist in the tree and people use what they prefer with the appropriate kernel config option, or even kld-ed module. And i would be quite happy about this solution which gives us new functionality for those who want/need it, and would also solve at zero cost the backward compatibility issues for people who are happy with the old code (ipfw interaction, configuration, etc). As an attitional bonus the imported code would remain more similar to the netbsd/openbsd ones, with obvious maintenance benefits. So the idea of ripping out the old bridge code seems to offer only disadvantages. I don't understand why every time we have this kind of discussion again and again about providing multiple solutions to one problem. People can have different opinions about diversity being good or bad (which is good -- diversity is good :), but I would be much happier to hear specific arguments not generic ones. In this particular case the answer seems pretty obvious. cheers luigi