Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 18:44:46 +0300 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, vak@cronyx.ru Subject: Re: kern/11238, kern/14848, kern/21771, sppp patch's patch_id #1 Message-ID: <3BEBF9EE.4030102@cronyx.ru> References: <000901c1134b$827a69a0$48b5ce90@crox> <3BDABF7B.4060808@cronyx.ru> <3BE24EE4.2020506@cronyx.ru> <20011102192916.A43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BE3ED17.3060603@cronyx.ru> <20011103182927.F43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BE7E1E5.4040500@cronyx.ru> <20011106212839.K43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BEAA112.6080001@cronyx.ru> <20011108230449.B75044@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
>As Roman Kurakin wrote:
>
>...
>
>>I don't think that they should be broken out completely. Physicaly,
>>yes it will be better to split them into separate files (core, ppp,
>>fr, cisco). From my point of view (Serge's as well ) logically it
>>should be a single whole. It can be called "sppp" from the
>>historical reasons, but I think now it is "sp" - "Synchronous
>>Protocols".
>>
>
>Hmm, well, i don't fully agree with that. For example for ISDN, it
>doesn't make any sense to have the FR and Cisco framing code in the
>kernel at all, just PPP is needed. I also don't see much benefit from
>
The range of application of sppp far from only ISDN. But you are right
that if you need only
PPP, FR or CISCO code would be just a waste of kernel memory. Probably I
should think
more seriously about spliting sppp into separate loadable parts that
could be dynamically attached to
the sp-core. What you think about this idea?
>sharing a single frontend, except perhaps to share the same interface
>name, regardless of the underlying framing protocol.
>
Those protocols have the same main idea - Point-to-Point Serial Protocols.
>>spppcontrol should became spcontrol, interact with sp-core, allow to
>>switch between protocols and set their parameters.
>>
>Right now, spppcontrol is only needed for PPP anyway (and it's
>basically an extension to the ifconfig command, but i wouldn't bloat
>ifconfig for that very specific purpose). Do FR and Cisco really need
>any additional parameters that cannot be passed via a simple ifconfig?
>
Current CISCO implementation don't, but there are extension that could
be emplemented later.
For FR some mechanism for switching between FR and PPP is necessary. We
also plan to
implement support for multi-PVC links (we implement it only in Linux,
cause FreeBSD didn't
has support for dynamic interfaces at that time)
Best regards,
Kurakin Roman
>But i don't care much, either version is OK for me. Even the version
>with a shared fronted (i. e., interface name) could keep the actual
>framing implementations optional -- after all, IP, IPv6, IPX etc. are
>also options that would all affect that code. The remainder can
>easily handled by some #ifdefs.
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BEBF9EE.4030102>