: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org On Behalf
Of Neel Chauhan
Sent: Dienstag, 11. August 2020 06:59
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: FreeBSD TCP/IP Tasks I (a contributor) could work on?
Hi freebsd-net@,
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this.
In case you were wondering, I am
On 8/10/2020 11:58 PM, Neel Chauhan wrote:
Hi freebsd-net@,
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this.
In case you were wondering, I am responsible for patches like r357092
(IPFW/libalias RFC6598, original idea), r363403 and r362900 (related
to routing KPI, suggested by melifaro@).
Howe
Hi freebsd-net@,
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this.
In case you were wondering, I am responsible for patches like r357092
(IPFW/libalias RFC6598, original idea), r363403 and r362900 (related to
routing KPI, suggested by melifaro@).
However, despite my current accepted code, I am
Uhh, thanks, I think.
I'll just let them dogs lie for the moment.
Later,
George
--
George V. Neville-Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NIC:GN82
"Those who would trade liberty for temporary security deserve neither"
- Benj
They also have (apparently) a link-layer
abstraction that shares some characteristics of Netgraph,
but I haven't looked at it yet.
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Justin C.Walker wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 26, 2001, at 11:37 , George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
>
> >> I can comment from the Mac OS X p
> Did these changes make it back into FreeBSD?
I'm sure that Justin's too nice a guy to say that the above question
is just about meaningless in any real-world context, so I'll jump in
and cuff you upside the head instead. :)
What Justin's describing is truly significant set of changes here, and
> The short answer is 'no'.
>
Thanks,
George
--
George V. Neville-Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NIC:GN82
"Those who would trade liberty for temporary security deserve neither"
- Benjamin Franklin
To Unsubscribe: se
On Wednesday, December 26, 2001, at 11:37 , George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
>> I can comment from the Mac OS X perspective...
>
> Thanks!
>
> And one last question:
>
> Did these changes make it back into FreeBSD?
The short answer is 'no'.
The longer answer is that noone has had the time or inte
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> I can't say one way or the other but in the past couple of weeks
> someone from Apple posted some fixes to the FreeBSD specifically in
> the TCP/IP area so I'm assuming it's the BSD stack. Otherwise the
> fixes would be going the other way.
I think
> I can comment from the Mac OS X perspective...
Thanks!
And one last question:
Did these changes make it back into FreeBSD?
Later,
George
--
George V. Neville-Neil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NIC:GN82
"Those who would trade liberty for temporary security deserve nei
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 11:07:48AM -0800, George V. Neville-Neil thus spoke:
> Just checking out some developer info on OS/X and I came upon this
> interesting quote:
> For kernel developers, Darwin provides the Network Kernel
> Extension (NKE) facility. This allows developers to create
>
I can comment from the Mac OS X perspective...
On Wednesday, December 26, 2001, at 11:07 , George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Just checking out some developer info on OS/X and I came upon this
> interesting quote:
[snip]
> Can anyone comment on the progeny of the TCP/IP st
Hi Folks,
Just checking out some developer info on OS/X and I came upon this
interesting quote:
For kernel developers, Darwin provides the Network Kernel Extension (NKE)
facility. This
allows developers to create networking modules and even entire protocol stacks
that can be
dynamical
Hi,
We are planning to use FreeBSD TCP/IP stack in one of the projects we are working on.
I am looking for the information related to FreeBSD TCP/IP like
i) Feartures supported by TCP/IP stack
ii) RFCs supported by TCP/IP stack
iii) API (both socket level and to the Data link layer
14 matches
Mail list logo
