Re: modularization

From: Barney Wolff (barney_at_databus.com)
Date: 10/06/04

  • Next message: Alfred Perlstein: "(forw) Re: kern/72396: Incorrect network accounting with aliases." 
    Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:44:20 -0400
To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>

    On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:30:43PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
    > Garrett Wollman wrote:
    >
    > ><<On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:57:14 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald
    > ><Waldemar.Kornewald@web.de> said:
    > >
    > >>Yes, something in that direction, plus: protocols:
    > >>IPv4, IPv6, TCP, UDP, ICMP, IPX, etc.
    > >>Just about everything as modules.
    > >
    > >It is not generally regarded as a good idea to make artificial
    > >boundaries between (e.g.) IP and TCP.
    > >
    > However from the success of the OSI/IP and related (CLNS, TP4, etc)
    > protocols it can said that it's a good way to fail.

    It's important to make a distinction between specification and
    implementation. Protocols should be designed and defined with clear
    boundaries between layers, but protocol handlers need not, and
    often should not, be implemented that way. 

    -- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Alfred Perlstein: "(forw) Re: kern/72396: Incorrect network accounting with aliases."