RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> writes: > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:54:24 -0500 > Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote: > >> However, >> commercial routers generally do not use their OS kernel this way -- it >> is far more common that the kernel does send and receive packets >> within its native IP stack. > > If I'm understanding you right, I'm surprised by that (the native part). > It make any proprietary software less portable. You're also tying your > code into third-party internals, which sounds like a maintenance > problem.
Yes, but I think that's a fairly small effect. The packet send/receive interface involved is generally pretty small, regardless of how you implement it. > I would have thought that the likes of Cisco and Alcatel > etc would would have reusable codebases that abstract the OS and > minimize OS dependencies. That's always a goal, of course. Completely throwing out the protocol stacks in the OS kernel doesn't make most things more portable, though. There are a fair number of system parameters that are already implemented in OS kernels, and reinventing that wheel doesn't buy you anything. > What's the advantage, don't routers usually lead OS's in terms > of new protocol support? Protocol support per se is generally fairly independent from the OS in a hardware router; high level protocols are usually handled in userland, and low level protocols are mostly a hardware issue. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"