"Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" wrote:
>
> >personally I use the netgraph bridging code and I think (though I'm biased)
> >that you should look at using htat rather than the hardwired bridging
> >code that it was derived from.
>
> Now that I've read up on it I can tell you you and and Archie have every
> right to be biased =)
>
> I've had a netgraph bridge in place for a while now and it works very well.
> (On 4.X-STABLE, on 5.X-CURRENT it went kablooie. See panic trace)
where is it?
(have you tried it REALLY recently?)
>
> > > item on my list. Being an allround good networking OS this is unacceptable
> > > IMHO.
> >
> >Have a look at what you can do with netgraph first.
> >
> >Most people don't know what it is but it allows almost arbitrarily
> >complicated network topologies to be set up from the command line.
>
> What you might want to tell people is that it allows networking structures
> to be setup in a simple manner, but is so powerful it can also be used for
> immensely complex structures. A friend and fellow BSD user of mine's first
> response was "I like to keep things simple". After I rephrased into the
> above he was much more interested.
>
> But from my list of wishes I'd say the first 3 are gone. All that's left is
> spanning tree. I'm probably going to need this pretty soon, so once more
> I'm asking if anyone is working on it. If not I'll start on it.
>
> Also, a quick question for you netgraph guys. Why is it that ng_one2many
> send a packet only out of one hook? I can see use for an algorithm that
> sends packets from the 'one' hook to all the 'many' hooks (that are up) and
> keep the normal behaviour for many to one.
>
> DocWilco
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
( OZ ) World tour 2000
---> X_.---._/ from Perth, presently in: Budapest
v
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
