>Personally, I read the paper as being an analysis of the performance
>of packet capture using BPF (and then, using the current BPF compared
>to enhancing it with a circular buffer) type tools with network drivers

Darren,

The paper says _nothing_, repeat _nothing_ about BPF, except as a
black-box datapoint for comparison to the stock _Linux_ packet-capture
techniques; polling drivers _in Linux_; and an mmap'ed ring-buffer
libpcap API on _Linux_.

I still dont understand anywhere the paper has to say _anything_ about
*BPF* perfomance, above and beyond Table 1. (Unless you count Figure
1, which is is grouns to reject the paper, all on its own).

I agree totally with the point about increaseing default packet
capture. Why don't you lighten up, leave off discussing bad, bad
papers that simply aren't relevant to NetBSD, and observe that,
(in fact), I'm committing most of the things you're suggesting?