[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(usagi-users 03034) Re: (KAME-snap 8781) SFCMIP: Kame and Usagi
- To: snap-users@xxxxxxxx, vjardin@xxxxxxx
- Subject: (usagi-users 03034) Re: (KAME-snap 8781) SFCMIP: Kame and Usagi
- From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <keiichi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:50:02 +0900 (JST)
- Cc: contact@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <1095337083.4149847b73fc3@imp3-q.free.fr>
- References: <1095337083.4149847b73fc3@imp3-q.free.fr>
- Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:24:53 +0900
- Resent-from: sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <200409171224.FMLAAB2640.usagi-users@linux-ipv6.org>
- Resent-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (moderated)
Hello,
From: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@xxxxxxx>
Subject: (KAME-snap 8781) SFCMIP: Kame and Usagi
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:18:03 +0200
> Hi,
>
> I know 2 implementations of a MIPv6 userland daemon:
> - one on linux that is developped by USAGI
> http://www.linux-ipv6.org/cvsweb/usagi/usagi/mip6/
> - one that is your SFCMIP for Kame/BSD
>
> I agree that it is the best way to implement MIPv6 ;-) by splitting the data
> path in the kernel and the control path in the userland.
>
> Why don't you try to unify the userland daemon on both implemtations (Kame and
> Usagi) ?
Well, we discussed the idea a bit befure, and decided not to do. As
you say, both implementations are designed to process MIP6 signaling
in the user space and packet processing in the kernel space. However,
the detailed design is very different and we thought we cannot sync
the design in a short term. Another point is licensing. Linux MIP6
implementation uses GPL, but KAME cannot use GPL.
We may find the path to merge them in the future, but for now, we
don't have such a plan.
Regards,
---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <keiichi@xxxxxxxxx>
KAME Project <keiichi@xxxxxxxx>