From owner-freebsd-atm@freebsd.org Mon May 1 16:04:12 2017 Return-Path: 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 4C83DD59DD9; Mon, 1 May 2017 16:04:12 +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 2BD6BA35; Mon, 1 May 2017 16:04:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: by spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (Postfix, from userid 3001) id D265F5A9F14; Mon, 1 May 2017 16:04:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 16:04:03 +0000 From: Brooks Davis To: Julian Elischer Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-atm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The fate of ngatm Message-ID: <20170501160403.GB77098@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20170427180029.GB35387@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <752628c6-f6a2-c4e4-e756-66b115428766@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <752628c6-f6a2-c4e4-e756-66b115428766@freebsd.org> 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! List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 16:04:12 -0000 --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:47:51AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 28/4/17 2:00 am, Brooks Davis wrote: > > 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. >=20 > I don't know if people are using these now, but at one stage people=20 > were using them to decode/encode atm higher level protocols over an=20 > ethernet transport to implement a PPPoA infrastructure. Just for clarity, I'm not talking about ng_atmllc(4) which is standalone and a classic header adding/striping module. -- Brooks --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZB1xzAAoJEKzQXbSebgfAtycH+QHfuk+9jplr7izrpmpo++uV LlM6fo12RUCeTIuoRIF6ZC6Ea9kM9/uWQoHMtFWY/oXpjTTf6fR6+Rx9Hz69Rqd7 WggV7P5LRifNymlkAWKRzQ+GaMtahbG/YZx70a6mCBG9dK166JShFdlt0+w9l6BX 2QubKWDuV5PJVNDscBVL1185DHlABN2R5hwwYUPt+6uAhKWWzLirAABMB5scjhUi fK1u9jFWS7pG1S1Ra4BPfNmSpzu5mFM9g1MYME2ugbbm2VG4dce6n6BS5U1vWeuV SV3FVxihidIdMjE6TGTSPkM+M3Ywnqdh6M/9B/1hoDWjFaXny7FJOF3dVbg9f5s= =8Vsm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j-- From owner-freebsd-atm@freebsd.org Mon May 1 17:13:51 2017 Return-Path: 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 816ECD598D4; Mon, 1 May 2017 17:13:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 688641F04; Mon, 1 May 2017 17:13:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id v41HDofL091029; Mon, 1 May 2017 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id v41HDohb091028; Mon, 1 May 2017 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201705011713.v41HDohb091028@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: The fate of ngatm In-Reply-To: <20170501160403.GB77098@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> To: Brooks Davis Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT) CC: Julian Elischer , freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-atm@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: freebsd-atm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: ATM for FreeBSD! List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 17:13:51 -0000 -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:47:51AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On 28/4/17 2:00 am, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I don't know if people are using these now, but at one stage people > > were using them to decode/encode atm higher level protocols over an > > ethernet transport to implement a PPPoA infrastructure. > > Just for clarity, I'm not talking about ng_atmllc(4) which is standalone > and a classic header adding/striping module. Does Juniper have any stake in this ATM code? Their routers do support ATM interfaces. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org