> I think separating the basic protocols (icmp/igmp, tcp, udp) from the
> ip module is not a good idea.
Why not? You can still use the same memmory area. I am not saying
completely separate, just let us make TCP as a kernel module or maybe
TCP and UDP.
ICMP/IGMP would have to stay as a part of IP.
> Even with tcp, ... included in the ip module, you can write new network
> protocols as separate modules.
Great. What if you want to replace existing protocol? Think about adding
some security layer between IP and TCP or to replace TCP by something
else. Who would need such a thing? Well, entertain me.
> Well... who would want ip without tcp or udp? :-)
> icmp will be mandatory anyway, because otherwise you would break the
> ip functionality (think of "no route to host", "packet too big", ...
> error messages)
Bootp does not need TCP.
> Please don't get me wrong - there are certainly situations where I wished
> the code would be a bit more modular, too (you should have heard me cursing
> when I saw how fragmentation is done in the ipv6 module ;-). I am no kernel
> hacker, but I think I figured out why the code is like it currently is.
All I am saying is let us make a clear distinction of what is IP (and
make kernel module out of it), what is TCP (maybe make separate module)
and the rest.
Andy
|