RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge

[Bruce A. Mah]

If memory serves me right, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:05:39PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> ...
> > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > >>Hi,
> > >>I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedb
> ack.
> > >>My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?'
> ...
> > This if_bridge would replace the current bridge(4) code.  It doesn't make
> 
> >From the diff it seems not to interfere at all with the existing
> bridge(4) code, so both can coexist in the tree and people use what
> they prefer with the appropriate kernel config option, or even
> kld-ed module.

This probably is the wrong place to mention this, but you know, right,
that ARP to an unnumbered bridged interface doesn't work if bridge(4) is
loaded as a module?  (The reason is the "#ifdef BRIDGE" conditional
surrounding the definition of BRIDGE_TEST in if_ether.c.)

Compiling bridge(4) into a kernel works just fine for this purpose, of 
course.

Bruce.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 223 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20040417/80040adf/attachment.bin