From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 07:46:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B65116A4CE for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:46:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp-1.dlr.de (smtp-1.dlr.de [195.37.61.185]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2C843D48 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:46:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de ([129.247.173.6]) by smtp-1.dlr.de over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:46:15 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:46:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt_h@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: Bruce M Simpson In-Reply-To: <20050416211000.GF784@empiric.icir.org> Message-ID: <20050418094356.O1882@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <20050415173711.I658@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20050416150810.GD5452@empiric.icir.org> <86ll7i30mc.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050416211000.GF784@empiric.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2005 07:46:15.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[B342B9B0:01C543EA] cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: De-orbitting ATM-HARP X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Harti Brandt List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:46:17 -0000 On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Bruce M Simpson wrote: BMS>On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:52:43PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: BMS>> Uh? PPP uses netgraph, which has its own socket thingy. BMS> BMS>Postscript. It struck my mind that you were possibly thinking of the BMS>netgraph-based, kernel-space implementation of PPP, in particular BMS>the ng_pppoe node. BMS> BMS>This only knows about the PPP-over-Ethernet encapsulation. If someone BMS>were to write the necessary node to support the PPP-over-ATM encapsulation, BMS>then yes, we probably could make NATM go away, but then Netgraph would be BMS>the only means of working with ATM virtual circuits under FreeBSD, which BMS>has debatable merits. Which? BMS>HARP may be old and crufty, NATM is but a small part of it, but it would be BMS>the last piece of ATM code which we have in common with the other BSDs. In BMS>terms of code quality and design, I've found it far nicer to work with than BMS>the equivalent Linux offering. Besides, I think being able to have native BMS>ADSL connectivity on a *BSD machine is a good thing. NATM is NOT part of HARP. We can safely remove HARP without touching NATM. But someone needs to sit down and fix NATM to be MPSAFE. harti BMS>Deprecating NATM for the 6.0 lifetime would affect several users, developers BMS>and committers who are working towards this. I'd be more than happy to see BMS>ng_pppoa go in for 6.0, though. BMS> BMS>[That would be an excellent idea - being able to run MPD on top of ATM would BMS>let us do native xDSL channel bonding on FreeBSD.] BMS> BMS>Just my 2c (about to change back to pence), BMS>BMS BMS> BMS> BMS>