x-kernel

[John Jannotti]

Now I see why people keep asking about x-kernel.  In their first paper, we
seem quite different.  In their second ("A Dynamic Network Architecture",
in ~jj/dynamic.ps)... well, there are a lot more similarities.

I think we should say:

We believe protocols should be be highly decomposed.  They begin to hint at
"micro-protocols", but don't show any real work there.

It's hard to compare performance (they are on a Sun3 on 10Mb/s ethernet),
but our design seems lighter weight.  They associate each packet with it's
own (lightweight) process.

We focus on routers, not on demultiplexing to userspace.

We make queues explicit, they seem to imply any faction could suspend a
packet.

We focus on making flexible routers mainly by rearranging factions, they
seem far more willing to recommend faction modification.

I *believe* we our system is better suited to reconfiguration without
recompilation.  They are hazy about what exactly is involved in a new
setup, but it *seems* to be a kernel recompile.


  jj