This is a discussion on Re: Bridges - FreeBSD ; Max Laier wrote: > > All, > > for some time now, we have three bridge implementations in the tree: > - net/bridge.c - the "old" bridge > - net/if_bridge.c - the "new" bridge from Net/OpenBSD > - netgraph/ng_bridge.c - ...
Max Laier wrote:
> for some time now, we have three bridge implementations in the tree:
> - net/bridge.c - the "old" bridge
> - net/if_bridge.c - the "new" bridge from Net/OpenBSD
> - netgraph/ng_bridge.c - the netgraph version 
> The new code has several advantages over the old version:
> - Spanning Tree Protocol (802.1D)
> - better firewall support (IPv6, stateful filtering, ...)
> - easy ifconfig(8) configuration
> while keeping all the functionality that was present in the old code:
> - dummynet support
> - IPFW L2 support 
> There have been some benchmarks that suggest that there isn't a performance
> issue either, but more numbers are always appreciated. If it turns out that
> there is any remaining problem with if_bridge we need to fix it. If you are
> running an old bridge on 6.0-BETA try moving to the new code and let us know.
> This means the old code is obsolete. In order to keep code duplication down
> and not hinder further development (Andre is working on an overhaul of 
> and would have to do it twice, for example) I would like to retire the old
> bridge code soon. This should happen in HEAD only and thus the old bridge
> will stay for all of FreeBSD 6 unless more aggressive depreciation is
> Please test the new alternative if you are using the old one still. Let us
> know if there are any issues remaining.
> Objections against soon retirement of bridge.c in HEAD?
No objection. if_bridge has surpassed net/bridge.c in features. There
is no compelling reason to carry two bridge implementations forward. It
only creates a unnecessary maintenance burden.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "firstname.lastname@example.org"