Hi Julian, > We already chaned the mbuf from 128 to 256 bytes a while ago, so having > more in the > header is not necessarily a bad thing.. it generally wasn't a problem > when it was only > capable of holding 100 or so bytes of data. Even with an expanded header > we are still > talking of holding up to 200 or so bytes of data in the mbuf. > > I'd like to propose an expandable format for mbufs... > Pitty I'm about 25 years too late. > > [header1][total headerlength] > [offset to first tag] > [more header info] m_data-------\ > [tag1] [tag1 len] | > [tag1 data] | > [tag2] [tag2 len] | > [tag2 data] | > [end of header] | > ... | > packet data <-------------------/ > ... > [end of mbuf]
I think I understand what you are proposing here, but what do you have in mind that would require such a system ? If there is no really good reason, I think it is wise to keep it simple. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
