From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 16 17:28:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BAE214E2D for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:28:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whiste.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA64713 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:28:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:28:48 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: netgraph into -stable. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I admit that it doesn't seem a minor addition, but I'd like ot get netgraph down -nto 3.x now that it has been shaken down a bit in 4.x reasons: 1/ DSL in Canada is now switching rapidly to PPPoE. 2/ PPP will start using it soon (other than with pppoe) and we'd like ONE version not 2 for Brian to maintain. 3/ ISPs who may wan tto use the PPPOE server side are generally running 3.x, not 4.x Supporting facts: Netgraph is written to generally be non intrusive. No code is changed in the non "options NETGRAPH" case and only minor changes are made in normal code paths in the NETGRAPH case. (with the exception of the if_sr and if_ar drivers) I might hold off on some of the more intrusive of those changes (e.g. no real need to add it to netstat immediatly) which will not really effect the functionality. And last but not least: We are actually developing Netgraph under 3.3 so we are already keeping two source trees in sync, 3.3. and 4.0 so we might as well let others get at it. Anyone violently object? Julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message