[openbeosnetteam] Re: Protocols types
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:22:56 +0200 CEST
Philippe Houdoin <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Because David, former developer, choose once to merge ARP protocol
> module
> within ethernet interface module.
> At start ARP was a separate protocol module like others, and I can't
> remember
> why he choose this...
Maybe for ease of implementation, maybe for speed reasons - but I am
sure you could just ask him for his reasons and he'll try to explain.
> Anyway, even without the embebded arp support, this switch in
> ethernet.c:ethernet_input() should not be there but in stack datalink
> layer.
> Oh, there is no datalink-layer technically speaking in current code.
> I miss him! ;-)
Yes, a data link layer would be nice.
> But, for ingoing data, it's not that easy. No protocol can say "this
> one is
> for me!" before looking at data.
> Maybe chaining all protocols of same auto-proclamed level and give
> them the
> data until someone "take it" and push it up instead of calling "not
> mine,
> next!" would be more flexible.
> But what about performance?!
That would definitely suffer in such a design.
I thought that i.e. the PPPoE module registers a specific ID (or
several, whatever is needed) for the ethernet net layer. This layer has
access to the registered modules for it, and thus, the ethernet module
could take the right one directly.
But that's just my opinion, because I really don't know enough about
that a networking stack to be able to design one myself :-)
Maybe this link is of help, but you probably know it already:
http://www.it.lth.se/~matsbror/itd_exjobb/home_pages/tcpip_axis/report/
Adios...
Axel.
Other related posts:
