From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 29 05:38:27 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90719285;
 Thu, 29 May 2014 05:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.karels.net (mail.karels.net [63.231.190.5])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D512E3D;
 Thu, 29 May 2014 05:38:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.karels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mail.karels.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s4T5b16Z033344;
 Thu, 29 May 2014 00:37:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mike@karels.net)
Message-Id: <201405290537.s4T5b16Z033344@mail.karels.net>
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>
From: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net>
Reply-to: mike@karels.net
Subject: Re: Roadmap for ifnet(9) for FreeBSD 11
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 29 May 2014 08:04:25 +0400.
 <20140529040425.GT50679@glebius.int.ru>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:37:01 -0500
Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>,
 Anuranjan Shukla <anshukla@juniper.net>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org>,
 "freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Arch" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 05:38:27 -0000

Marcel and others, is there more to the roadmap than making the ifnet easier
to change?  Could you outline a bit more of the roadmap?  I know that Juniper
has more levels in the hierarchy of interface data structures.  What are you
proposing that we change after this step?

I'll also repeat the general part of Rui's question:

R> This is indeed needed, but it would be nice to understand what would happen if the community has comments about your patch. Will Juniper be able to integrate back those comments?

		Mike