Hi, Recently I was in the same dilemma. Is the OpenTCP project still active ? I am about to integrate a TCP stack in my RTOS and I am choosing with which one to go. marko http://usmartx.sourceforge.net Joel Winarske wrote: >>Out of curiosity, how does this compare in performance or functionality to >>Ethernut on ARM? There is also an LPC port for this under way. >> >> > >Here's a brief overview of free stacks, in alphabetical order: > >Nut/Net (Ethernut) - IPV4, TCP, UDP, ICMP, PPP (minimal) - PAP, stack >documentation? fragmented packet support? > >lwIP 1.1.0 - IPV4, IPV6, TCP, UDP, DHCP, ICMP, PPP - PAP, CHAP, VJ, minimal >documentation, fragmented packet support. > >OpenTCP - IPV4, TCP, UDP, DHCP, ICMP, DNS, BOOTP, TFTP, SMTP, POP3, HTTP, >good documentation. Fragmented packet support? > >uIP - IPV4, TCP, UDP, DHCP, SMTP, POP3, HTTP, TELNET, FTP, VNC, IRC, PPP - >PAP, zero documentation, no fragmented packet support. See Contiki project >for recent code base. > > >On the ones that support POP3 and SMTP, it appears clear text authentication >is only implemented. Most modern ISPs require more than this. > >The best performing would be dependent on a number of variables - in no >particular order: > >1. I/O bandwidth to EMAC. This could be a combination of EMAC receive >buffer size, DMA between EMAC and RAM, bit banged port, polled driver, or >interrupt driven I/O. >2. EMAC hardware filtering - prevents MCU from handling unwanted traffic >3. Available MCU RAM. >4. Protocol stack - buffer management. Zero copy? Does stack offer >predefined memory pool or is malloc() required? >5. Protocol stack - CRC implementation. Some silicon offers hardware CRC >to increase throughput. Example - Maxim/Dallas DS80C4xx series. > >etc. etc. > > >These are not specific to ARM, but Ethernet in general. From here you weigh >your design requirements, the MCU features, and the protocol stack. The >integration of the EMAC can be the biggest performance variable. > > >HTH, >Joel > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message
Re: [lpc2000] tcpip
2006-01-15 by Marko Panger
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.