Network Stack Code Re-write (Possible motivations...?)
Martes G Wigglesworth
martes at mgwigglesworth.com
Sat Dec 20 22:40:55 UTC 2008
Thanks again for further information on this topic.
Where can I find more information this as a research topic. I am
talking about Academic/PHD-level information or industry-level
(I mean that I am looking at this from a knowledge-base expansion point
of view, so don't filter out possible academic avenues because that is
where I am mostly coming from in the first place.)
Is this the realm where I would have to be one of those
six-figure-income embedded programmers to really get my teeth into the
subject, or what??? It is OK, you can be honest, hehehe...
Thanks again for all the informative comments, list...
On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 22:20 +0000, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:35:35 -0500
> Martes G Wigglesworth <martes at mgwigglesworth.com> wrote:
> > However, the intuitive list member response strikes again.
> > Thanks alot for you input.
> > I, as you, can't really figure out why they felt, years ago, that they
> > needed to re-invent the wheel.
> Bear in mind that such companies may have a range of products, that
> range from something not unlike a pc with lots of interfaces up to
> something with multiple levels of embedded processors each running their
> own OSes. In the latter case you need a network stack that's
> largely OS independent, so it can spread itself across the
> (non-symmetric) processors. You may also need to be able to separate
> fast-path, slow-path and control path for high performance.
> Once you have done all that, you've left the native OS stacks unused,
> leaving them available for the user interface or in some cases
> communication between sub-systems. This separation is good on security
> grounds too, it's preferable not to have network management "in-band".
More information about the freebsd-questions