From owner-freebsd-atm@freebsd.org  Thu Apr 27 18:06:07 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-atm@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-atm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF94D53546;
 Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:06:07 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net)
Received: from spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (spindle.one-eyed-alien.net
 [199.48.129.229])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D131E6D;
 Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:06:07 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net)
Received: by spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (Postfix, from userid 3001)
 id 7C97E5A9F14; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:00:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:00:29 +0000
From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-atm@freebsd.org
Subject: The fate of ngatm
Message-ID: <20170427180029.GB35387@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5vNYLRcllDrimb99"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-atm@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: ATM for FreeBSD! <freebsd-atm.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-atm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-atm-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-atm/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-atm@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-atm-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-atm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-atm-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:06:07 -0000


--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

As previous threatened, I've removed support for NATM (as well as a
remarkable number of remnants of the old ATM framework).  One piece
that still remains is the ngatm framework in netgraph.  This includes
the ng_ccatm(4), ng_sscfu(4), ng_sscop(4), and ng_uni(4) nodes.

These don't attach to physical interfaces and didn't depend on the NATM
interface code so I left them alone in the first cut.  My question
is, are they useful without physical interfaces?  If so, keeping them
doesn't appear to have a high support burden.  If not, we should remove
them.

-- Brooks

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZAjG8AAoJEKzQXbSebgfAx08H/jXMPxEqHqlBvr2LAfkIq7wf
8H6zkiCxcv6F0J+bwfkJwDmWEJ+/D36nGAFdul2MfxRfVP8121QrYVp3HrkXpaIr
Eje8SVPMhB5QXmHZoqsozRkdPLAiKjM0qv9W4Y7gnfb4fn5JRt1/VeCPNGKgcoKi
pnM6HvkzC/d2xaIF6BXDmNpJW8g4Zk1+TDDFJDqKtYagm7G4CQRajRtyt1jbj2ub
blmBo9NbHZTVn1yDC1LO08Jdpjx+tPaIq4xp+E6+1J6rCT780YIiQRsjD11gdvtS
jBet1jNzrO1vIPp3sL9OWMwtHTQCgr40HmYasI1DxhC8YBl5v+RxZ0tCQWovcz0=
=DdUp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99--