Subject: Re: Looking ahead
To: NetBSD-embed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: bifferos <email@example.com>
Date: 06/08/2007 11:00:35
--- David Young <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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