Subject: Re: ipfw: FreeBSD -> NetBSD port [WAS: RE: dummynet: FreeBSD ->NetBSD
To: Nicolas Saurbier <Nicolas.Saurbier@concept04.de>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/27/2006 16:15:40
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Nicolas Saurbier wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:03:36 +0000, Rui Paulo wrote:
>>>Isn't dummynet very integrated with ipfw ? If so, I suspect one must
>>>port ipfw first :-) (flame away!)
> Agree on that! So let's change "Subject:" ;-)
If I were you I wouldn't waste any effort in porting ipfw and dummynet,
as they have been replaced long ago by better alternatives (pf and
openbsd's altq, imo). Ipfw and dummynet are so-called 'Luigicode', after
the principal author of both. Look at the sources to get what I mean.
>>Sigh, new ALTQ API.... ;-)
> Jepp, that ALTQ-thing is pretty outdated by now...
> This is a real gap between NetBSD and Open/FreeBSD.
> OK, by now we have pflkm that patches altq but a new API for the good-old
> ALTQ would be a good step ahead. Is there any1 already working on this point?
It's a real pain that working out an appropriate new API with all the
new ALTQ features as OpenBSD (and FreeBSD/DragonFlyBSD) ha(s)(ve), turns
out to be so hard. I've seen several people come and go working on a new
API, and quite frankly my expectations of finally having a finished spec
alone diminish by the day. Perhaps core@ should set a direction for it
and start kicking people off of their asses ;).
Thomas E. Spanjaard
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----