| To: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: TOE brain dump |
| From: | "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <filia@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:48:24 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1060015518.1103.399.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Organization: | Home Sweet Home |
| References: | <1060015518.1103.399.camel@jzny.localdomain> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701 |
jamal wrote:
to nit: Its no longer about routing or bridging, friend. Thats like getting fries at mcdonalds.
Since I see no reasonable out-come of this discussion I left it. TOE as I see - since my company utilizes several of them - are too different and too specialized to application/protocols. And yes - price of development/deployment maters too. Linux support for those protocols is inmature. It cannot handle or requirements even software-wise. I'm not talking about timing requirements - linux network in general is not (even soft) real-time. My personal flame-meter is out of scale ;-) I shall join the discussion back when I will see any real ideas.
We are doing not a teapot, and high level spec for this code takes around 15 pages. 3k - it is not optimized - we have limit around 2GB ;-) It just takes only 3k. And it handles some special (read - proprietary) functions too - some bugs of some other pieces of hardware. NPU does all stuff by itself, but sometimes we need to extract configuration information which is direct to us, for example. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: TOE brain dump, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Make XFRM optional, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TOE brain dump, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TOE brain dump, jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |