From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: announcing rump kernel TCP/IP stack for DPDK Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:20:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20130523122024.1dc6837d@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <519E4686.90406@iki.fi> <20130523103445.2dc6feb5@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <519E63EA.9020700@iki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Antti Kantee Return-path: In-Reply-To: <519E63EA.9020700-X3B1VOXEql0@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:02 +0200 Antti Kantee wrote: > On 23.05.2013 19:34, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Already done several times before. > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip/ > > https://code.google.com/p/tcp-ip-in-user-space/ > > http://www.ohloh.net/p/tcp-ip-in-user-space > > http://www.ioremap.net/projects/unetstack > > http://www.joerch.org/tcpip/ > > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.167.2757 > > I'm aware of the paper you linked given that I wrote it. I don't agree > that it supports your claim "already done several times before". I was more worried about multiple different TCP-IP stacks that seem to be only used by small number of people and not maintained. Doing full TCP/IP is hard, and there are lots of features inside. It would be great to have one that is well supported and maintained.