Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:13:14 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Network Stack Code Re-write (Possible motivations...?) Message-ID: <44k59rq2o5.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20081221031611.6f1dc764@gumby.homeunix.com> (RW's message of "Sun\, 21 Dec 2008 03\:16\:11 %2B0000") References: <1229788709.1583.16.camel@MGW_1> <44iqpezlb8.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20081220205414.A10042@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <448wqazfyf.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20081220224016.S10302@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <441vw2zcdb.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20081221031611.6f1dc764@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> writes: > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:54:24 -0500 > Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote: > >> However, >> commercial routers generally do not use their OS kernel this way -- it >> is far more common that the kernel does send and receive packets >> within its native IP stack. > > If I'm understanding you right, I'm surprised by that (the native part). > It make any proprietary software less portable. You're also tying your > code into third-party internals, which sounds like a maintenance > problem. Yes, but I think that's a fairly small effect. The packet send/receive interface involved is generally pretty small, regardless of how you implement it. > I would have thought that the likes of Cisco and Alcatel > etc would would have reusable codebases that abstract the OS and > minimize OS dependencies. That's always a goal, of course. Completely throwing out the protocol stacks in the OS kernel doesn't make most things more portable, though. There are a fair number of system parameters that are already implemented in OS kernels, and reinventing that wheel doesn't buy you anything. > What's the advantage, don't routers usually lead OS's in terms > of new protocol support? Protocol support per se is generally fairly independent from the OS in a hardware router; high level protocols are usually handled in userland, and low level protocols are mostly a hardware issue. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44k59rq2o5.fsf>