On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:55:49AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, 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?' > > > > > > > > > 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?) > > > > > What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality? > > > > I didnt know about that one, 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.. > I guess the main advantage is that all three > *BSDs would have the same code and interface. While I imported it from NetBSD, > it originated in OpenBSD. Thats assuming anyone cares about that sort of > thing. > ng_bridge allows you to bridge to things other than interfaces.. e.g. You can bridge 2 ethernet interfaces and a UDP tunnel and have the other end of the tunnel bridged back to ethernet. e.g. en1----+ +---- en2 [ng_bridge]--[UDP]-------[UDP]----[ng_bridge] en3----+ +---- en4 > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >Received on Fri Apr 16 2004 - 22:24:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:51 UTC