lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lwip-users] Choosing lwIP


From: Timmy Brolin
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Choosing lwIP
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:22:04 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)

The Interniche stack seems to be based on the BSD TCP/IP stack.
It needs alot more ROM and RAM memory than lwip. For example, it does
not support pbuf chains, which means that every single incoming packet
regardless of actual size usually takes 1500bytes RAM. At least the
nichestack version I have used.
It seems to be more of a "full featured" standard stack than a memory
conserving stack targeted at embedded applications.
There is not much of a raw API, normal sockets are used instead.

The licensing requirements on nichestack are a bit unclear. There are
several different BSD-style license notices from several copyright
holders (mainly universities like Berkley) in the headers of the source
code.
And on top of that you have a licensing agreement with Interniche, which
you normally pay for.
You probably have to dedicate on full page of your product manual to
copyright information to fit all the mandatory fine print copyright and
disclaimer notices.

lwip licensing is simpler. Only one BSD-style notice which needs to be
reproduced.

Timmy Brolin



address@hidden wrote:
> That's true: I think Altera has chosen the Interniche stack because
> they get support for it and don't have to do it on their own. Also,
> the Interniche stack has some upper-level protocols which are not
> included in lwIP (since lwIP focuses on the TCP/IP part of networking,
> not the upper-level protocols). But from what I can say (I evaluated
> the Interniche stack after Altera moved to it), I think technically,
> there is not that much difference: the only things I saw Interniche
> supports and we don't (YET!) are IPv6 and checksum-on-copy (which is
> under development in lwIP and I can't even remember if it was the
> Interniche stack which supported this...)
>
> Anyway, I have to admit the lwIP stack has a hard time against the
> Interniche stack with Altera products, because you get the license for
> free when you buy Altera products and it is better integrated into the
> Altera IDE (Add-ons for Eclipse). But if you don't mind writing a bit
> more of your own code instead (to make up the
> Interniche-IDE-integration), lwIP is still a good competitor, of
> course! -> That's why I use it!
>
> Simon
>
>
> Pettinato, Jim wrote:
>> With a bit of digging, it appears to me that Altera farmed out the
>> stack porting/maintenance task to interniche tecnologies, inc. -
>> TCP/IP networking is not Altera's core compentency so I can
>> understand the move. Now they don't have to worry about keeping up to
>> date or supporting issues with the stack software.
>> * *
>> __
>>
>> *James M. Pettinato, Jr.*
>>
>> Software Engineer
>>
>> E: _jim.pettinato_
>> <blocked::mailto:address@hidden>address@hidden
>> <blocked::mailto:address@hidden> | P: 814 898 5250
>>
>>
>> *FMC Technologies **Measurement Solutions Inc.*
>> 1602 Wagner Avenue | Erie PA | 16510 USA
>> Phone: 814 898 5000 | Fax: 814 899-3414
>> _www.fmctechnologies.com_ <blocked::http://www.fmctechnologies.com/>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* address@hidden
>> [mailto:address@hidden *On
>> Behalf Of *Zeder, Stacy
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2008 8:55 AM
>> *To:* address@hidden
>> *Subject:* [lwip-users] Choosing lwIP
>>
>> Folks…
>>
>> I’m looking into TCP/IP stacks and am very interested in lwIP.
>> However, on the Altera website, they do not recommend lwIP for new
>> development because they said it is legacy, or deprecated. Is this
>> true? Does anyone out there have any ideas of why they would say
>> this? Does lwIP have support for IPv6? Could this be the issue? And
>> if lwIP does not currently support IPv6, what is the schedule for
>> developing such support? Or, are there other technical capabilities
>> lwIP does not support that commercial solutions might?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
>>
>> …Stacy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lwip-users mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]