Subject: Re: SoC: Adding teredo support to NetBSD
To: None <tech-net@NetBSD.org>
From: Arnaud Lacombe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/04/2006 18:48:41
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 08:28:13PM -0500, David Young wrote:
> > The project will be a complete rewrite under G^HBSD license, done in
> > three parts: the server will be done first (as it is the central
> > component of teredo), then the relay, and finaly the client. The two
> > first part will be mandatory, maybe not the last part (depending on
> > comments, mentors opinion ...). It's aim will be to be integrated
> > into NetBSD (4.99.x at least, as 4.0 release is not so far).
> Hi Arnaud,
> You should program the client, first, both because it is most useful
> to the greatest number of potential users, and because servers already
> exist for you to test with.
ok, in fact, I was following the implementation done by ng_teredo which
provide server and relay only. Miredo can act as client, relay and
serve, the first thing I'll do will be to setup a working
client/server/relay/ local network which will be used during my work.
> > I think that the best choice for portability is to make a userland
> > program, which won't be dependant of specific OS' API. I guess it will
> > use socket & related framework.
> I strongly prefer an in-kernel implementation, because I believe it
> will perform better on low-end machines (486-class, like the Soekris
> net45xx) than a userland implementation. I have something in mind like
> the pseudo-device, stf(4).
ok, in fact I was looking for somethings portable. stf(4) device could
also be used :). Directly using device will also ease the work.
> I agree with Michael Richardson that the Teredo pseudo-device and the
> stf(4) can probably share a lot of code.
would the implementation be a part of stf(4) or a new pseudo-interface
(trd?) ? I mean, even if stf(4) and teredo will share some piece of code,
having two distinct interface (and C-source file) will ease future work
on both device.