Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge

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