> customization to turn them into networking switches,
> routers, firewalls, etc. Rather than embedding a RTOS,
> they are choosing a free unix and usually this is FreeBSD
> since Linux networking is not the de facto BSD stack.
So we should use a defacto BSD stack because its a defacto stack. Ok there is
great OS called windows3. See you later
> The "unique" tcp/ip implementation is a liability to linux.
I'm not convinced it is. A whole load of SGI people (LM notably) seem intent on
stack, BSD stack, BSD stack". Everyone else I hear is saying "How fast can it
"How stable can we make it", "Will you please make sure its as solid in 2.0 as
> Is anyone working to replace the standard linux stack
> with port derived from the 4.4BSD code?
o The BSD stack doesnt do IPX, AX25, NetROM, Appletalk
o There will be no defacto IPv6 for BSD, there are several species
o The licensing doesnt permit the two to meet easily
o You can't do 400Mbits/second with mbufs so you'd have to break the BSD
Im not convinced about the rest of the argument either. I know one big vendor
the BSD stack for a project. I know several using Linux (Things like the
from Mazama). We are seeing primary rate ISDN support for Linux starting to
and already have the heavy provider end multiple serial cards.
For routers, anyone using a PC style architecture is bounding themselves to
routers anyway. No matter how good the code is you will soon need fancy
handle BGP4, 50,000 routes and fast 100baseT speed switching. And there is no
defacto BSD IPv6