Julian Elischer wrote:
As I mentioned before, I am slightly uncomfortable with the
implementation of this
change as it puts protocol specific items into the protocol
independent mbuf header.
The fact that 99.99% of network traffic coming in and out of a
machine uses this protocol
at the the moment makes it understandable but if in 2 years a new
transport mechanism sweeps
the world for which this is irrelevent, or worse, has a different
requirement for similar fields,
are we going to add fields for that too? should this be defined as a
link layer specific union for
which we can add future variants?
This argument seems a case of putting the cart before the horse -- it's
a bit up in the air. If anything Ethernet is more likely to increase in
popularity, and it is the most common use case. Particularly so, given
that VLAN encapsulation is specified for 802.1p priority tagging, and
there is more and more interest in L2 QoS because of VoIP.
Kudos to Andre for sorting it out.
Regards,
BMS
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
