On 23.05.2013 21:20, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> I'm aware of the paper you linked given that I wrote it. I don't agree >> that it supports your claim "already done several times before". > > I was more worried about multiple different TCP-IP stacks that seem > to be only used by small number of people and not maintained. Doing full > TCP/IP is hard, and there are lots of features inside. > It would be great to have one that is well supported and maintained.
I'm also well aware that doing TCP/IP right is very very hard. It's not possible sit down with the spec for a weekend, write up some code, and hope it will work in the real world. That's why I didn't implement TCP/IP. The implementation I mentioned is the unmodified NetBSD kernel TCP/IP stack running on a very thin hypervisor layer. It's not maintained by a few people, it's literally maintained by the entire NetBSD community. Furthermore, it's not a set of patches available for the NetBSD kernel updated every now and then, it's literally [in] the kernel. It's been working this way since 2008. What I did now was just write 200 lines of code to plug the TCP/IP stack onto DPDK. Hopefully that convinced you that it's not just some random one-shot kinda-works-except-in-reality bitrot attractor ;) - antti
