Actually, the author used the word 'advanced' ('sophisticated' was my
paraphrasing) - and my interpretation was that he was referring to
throughput, primarily - specifically referencing zero-copy and checksum
bypass features...
Hasn't that very topic come up recently with regard to lwIP?? ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Goldschmidt Simon
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:48 PM
To: Pettinato, Jim;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: [lwip-users] DHCP - getting address works but not
responding
Cool! I'd like to see an independent comparision of lwIP vs. a
more "sophisticated" stack, though!
As I am not a native speaker, what exactly do you think they
meant with 'sophisticated'? I think we also have some clever ideas in
our stack ;-) OK, we might have to work a little to get it fast and real
stable. And I'm biased, too (of course)...
-----Originalnachricht-----
Von:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: Mailing list for lwIP users
Gesendet: 14.05.2007 19:24
Betreff: RE: [lwip-users] DHCP - getting address works but not
responding
All,
For those that might be interested, the cover feature of this
month's
Embedded Systems Design magazine ("Put a Configurable 32-bit
Processor
in Your FPGA", N. Sundaramoothy, E.S.D. May 2007) mentions lwIP
as the
sole example of a stack for use with a 'lite' Ethernet subsystem
in the
titular application.
Unfortunately, the author recommends a more sophisticated stack
if a
higher throughput is required... personally I think lwIP could
still fit
the bill, but hey, I might be biased. ;)
Congrats and thanks again to everyone who has contributed and
supported
the lwIP project - it's good to see acknowlegement in an
accepted
industry publication such as E.S.D.!
- Jim
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
