Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:29 -0700 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <200404171542.i3HFgToD006447@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> In-Reply-To: <20040417060059.A50118@xorpc.icir.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <40810F83.2030107@freebsd.org> <20040417060059.A50118@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-178935187P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > 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 feedb > ack. > > >>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. This probably is the wrong place to mention this, but you know, right, that ARP to an unnumbered bridged interface doesn't work if bridge(4) is loaded as a module? (The reason is the "#ifdef BRIDGE" conditional surrounding the definition of BRIDGE_TEST in if_ether.c.) Compiling bridge(4) into a kernel works just fine for this purpose, of course. Bruce. --==_Exmh_-178935187P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5+ 20020506 iD8DBQFAgVBl2MoxcVugUsMRArdWAKD79mrAhrF/xc4FJv2N5cJPwZJCmACfch4e QDTl0Lzmv1jvRGyxZhkrSOc= =RwdR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-178935187P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404171542.i3HFgToD006447>