[openbeosnetteam] Re: routes

  • From: "Waldemar Kornewald" <wkornew@xxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:04:16 +0200

On 7/31/06, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oliver Tappe <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm glad you mention it, since I just wanted to start a new submodule
> of
> net_domain (address_arithmetic_module_info or anything like that) and
> move
> all the functions that deal with address-comparing/-masking and the
> like from
> route.cpp and interfaces.cpp into the new module. I suppose we could
> even get
> rid of address_offset and address_length.

If we do that, we can for sure get rid of address_offset and
address_length; they are only used for comparison and (not yet)
masking. It probably depends a bit on the needs of other address
domains if this is really necessary (in terms of required), anyway, but
I must admit I haven't had a closer look at IPv6 yet (I just went the
BONE route :-)).

All I read is that IPv6 routing is much simpler than IPv4...

> Anyway, I'll just wait for BerliOS to move...


Yeah, waiting is fun. :)

Maybe we should think about moving to a distributed SCM like Mercurial
(which is used by OpenSolaris, BTW)? That would make us more
independent of our host because we could have multiple hosts for our
repos (and mirrors, so they don't eat all our bandwidth). Also, what I
really like about distributed systems is that non-members can easily
maintain their own patches and it gets a lot easier to contribute. SVN
is very ugly in this regard (maintaining our Trac patches is like

But moving to SF or Google is okay, too. It's time for slow repos
access, again. ;)
Maybe it's an omen that SF got their SVN service up at the same time
when BerliOS got problems? Nah... :)

Waldemar Kornewald

Other related posts: