--- David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 06:37:19AM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > On Tue Jun 05 2007 at 10:25:41 -0400, Allen Briggs wrote:
> > > > * tiny & full tcp/ip stack (like QNX for example)
> > > 
> > > If we're defining a "tiny & full" tcp/ip stack, it would be useful
> > > to identify what "tiny" and "full" mean.  Can you elaborate?  I
> > > have some idea what I would mean by that, but would like to hear
> > > what you would be willing to give up.
> > 
> > One option for a tinier & "full" tcp/ip stack is to rip out the routing
> > code.  But it's not exactly easy make it an optional module.
> > 
> > see:
> > http://www.cs.hut.fi/~pooka/pubs/EuroBSDCon2006/bsd_lwrouting.pdf
> 
> I believe this talk about the size of the IP stack is a distraction,
> and we should not squander our volunteer developers' valuable time
> discussing it any further, when we know that people eschew NetBSD for
> embedded use more often because NetBSD lacks board/device support and
> essential features such as a NAND flash filesystem.

I agree.  And with few 'micro' alternatives to the standard network 
utilities (dhclient etc..) that is probably where the bloat comes in.




      ___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html