Received:  by oss.sgi.com id <S42209AbQF0O6r>;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:58:47 -0700
Received: from gst.gst.com ([208.219.159.150]:56082 "EHLO gst.gst.com")
	by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id <S42208AbQF0Osz>;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:48:55 -0700
Received: from x0.org ([208.219.159.214])
	by  gst.gst.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29280
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3958BED5.43FE6C27@x0.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:48:53 -0400
From:   Andy <andy@x0.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:     "netdev@oss.sgi.com" <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Network protocols as modules
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com>
X-Orcpt: rfc822;netdev-outgoing

Hello!

After long brainstorm meating, we compiled a list of some good reasons
for
network protocols to be implemented as kernel modules:

Cleaner code
Better maintainability
Better extensibility
Modularity
Smaller initial kernel
Higher efficiency

Here are some scenarios:

PDA, linux powered watch, satelite,... does not need TCP/IP running all
the time. It could load module when needed. This would save working
space and power consumption by adding minimal latency to the initial
network request.

Linux powered diskless workstation has kernel in some small memmory, for
example bios and it runs bootp/tftp. They both run without TCP, why
would TCP eat the memmory. The kernel can get TCP module from the
network.

Problems of putting TCP on some other layer or sticking another layer
between TCP and
IP. If TCP would be independent from IP, then this would be trivial.

IPV6 support is complicated because TCP has its tenticles inside IP
implementation.

Please comment.

				Andy