Julian's netowrking challenge 2005

[Jeremie Le Hen]

Hi Julian,

> We already chaned the mbuf from 128 to 256 bytes a while ago, so having 
> more in the
> header is not necessarily a bad thing.. it generally wasn't a problem 
> when it was only
> capable of holding 100 or so bytes of data. Even with an expanded header 
> we are still
> talking of holding up to 200 or so bytes of data in the mbuf.
> 
> I'd like to propose an expandable format for mbufs...
> Pitty I'm about 25 years too late.
> 
> [header1][total headerlength]
>         [offset to first tag]
>         [more header info]  m_data-------\
> [tag1]   [tag1 len]                       |
>         [tag1 data]                      |
> [tag2]   [tag2 len]                       |
>         [tag2 data]                      |
> [end of header]                           |
>          ...                             |
>          packet data <-------------------/
>          ...
> [end of mbuf]

I think I understand what you are proposing here, but what do you have
in mind that would require such a system ?  If there is no really good
reason, I think it is wise to keep it simple.

Regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >