Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 14:45:45 +0100 From: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@wanadoo.fr> To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> Cc: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>, atm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New version of ngATM Message-ID: <3E26DAA600DC2A2B@mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr> (added by postmaster@wanadoo.fr) In-Reply-To: <20030208163348.I27486@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030207134646.80673B-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20030208163348.I27486@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ARR>How would people compare the current ngATM and current HARP stacks? Is > it ARR>worth at all to fully port the HARP driver code to the ngATM code > and just ARR>waste the netatm/ code? > > When I catch up with my clip code, then ngATM can everything that HARP > can (except for SPANs signalling. Does anybody actually still use that?). > Plus it has UNI4.0 instead of 3.1, it has LAN emulation and it should be > trivial to support PPPoA, PPPoEoA or what ever crazy combination one could > think of. I already use the HARP stack for PPPoE and PPPoEoA whithout any modification of the HARP source code ;-) > With regard to drivers: I'm going to busdmaify the en driver. I think I > have an LE155 card somewher here, so I will tackle the IDT driver after > that. When this is done, we have all that is supported with HARP also in > ngATM. The LE155 board uses the IDT77211 SAR chipset, doesn't it ? Then it is already supported by the HARP stack, moreover this driver uses DMA. It already supports UBR and CBR. According to me, the HARP stack is a very stable code, it has lot of features and their drivers are working very well for a long time. If we need to improve the ATM support of FreeBSD, one should be more focused on the current code in order to improve the HARP stack and to add some new drivers. However, if there are some issues with the HARP stack, then ngATM is a very good alternative. Nevertheless, I do not see any issues with HARP yet ;-) It just lacks of people in order to support it. FreeBSD has already 2 ATM stacks : a basic one (NATM) and a full featured one (HARP), why is a third ATM stack required ? Vincent To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-atm" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E26DAA600DC2A2B>