From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: PF_RING: Include in main line kernel? Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20091014.132911.174712308.davem@davemloft.net> References: <903D7FEC-34E8-4F70-ABC0-E56A3A5FBBE6@ntop.org> <20091014.131526.181354809.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bcook@bpointsys.com, brad.doctor@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: deri@ntop.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:49621 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754112AbZJNU3O (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:29:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Luca Deri Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:26:25 +0200 > I agree that some PF_RING features could be merged into > PF_PACKET. However PF_RING is not just about improving packet capture > but it implements facilities that can be used by many monitoring > applications including, packet balancing, reflection, layer-7 packet > filtering, pf_ring socket clustering just to name a few. You can read > about PF_RING feature into this tutorial: > http://luca.ntop.org/IM2009_Tutorial.pdf I've already researched several times what PF_RING does and is capable of doing, and my position still stands that none of it can't be added to existing facilities. It's been an out of tree hack for years, and if it stays as a seperate facility it's likely to stay that way.