Actually, the author used the word 'advanced'
('sophisticated' was my paraphrasing) - and my interpretation was that he was
referring to throughput, primarily - specifically referencing zero-copy and
checksum bypass features...
Hasn't that very topic come up recently with
regard to lwIP?? ;-)
Cool! I'd like to see an independent comparision of lwIP vs.
a more "sophisticated" stack, though!
As I am not a native speaker, what
exactly do you think they meant with 'sophisticated'? I think we also have
some clever ideas in our stack ;-) OK, we might have to work a little to get
it fast and real stable. And I'm biased, too (of
course)...
-----Originalnachricht-----
Von:
address@hidden
An:
Mailing list for lwIP users
Gesendet: 14.05.2007 19:24
Betreff: RE:
[lwip-users] DHCP - getting address works but not
responding
All,
For those that might be interested, the
cover feature of this month's
Embedded Systems Design magazine ("Put a
Configurable 32-bit Processor
in Your FPGA", N. Sundaramoothy, E.S.D. May
2007) mentions lwIP as the
sole example of a stack for use with a 'lite'
Ethernet subsystem in the
titular application.
Unfortunately, the
author recommends a more sophisticated stack if a
higher throughput is
required... personally I think lwIP could still fit
the bill, but hey, I
might be biased. ;)
Congrats and thanks again to everyone who has
contributed and supported
the lwIP project - it's good to see
acknowlegement in an accepted
industry publication such as
E.S.D.!
-
Jim
_______________________________________________
lwip-users
mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
