From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 7 05:39:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF76D16A4CE for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 05:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43C743D48 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 05:39:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i47CdmQE097649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 May 2004 16:39:49 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@cell.sick.ru) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id i47Cdmek097648; Fri, 7 May 2004 16:39:48 +0400 (MSD) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:39:47 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Dmitry Morozovsky Message-ID: <20040507123947.GA97635@cell.sick.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Gleb Smirnoff , Dmitry Morozovsky , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20040507160253.B61288@woozle.rinet.ru> <20040507121738.GA97302@cell.sick.ru> <20040507162633.G61288@woozle.rinet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040507162633.G61288@woozle.rinet.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FrameRelay support for cx/ctau adapters X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 12:39:52 -0000 On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 04:31:08PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: D> GS> FreeBSD has support for FR with help of nodes ng_frame_relay and ng_lmi. This D> GS> support is hardware independent. And it works perfectly with cronyx adapters. D> GS> What is a reason for merging hardware specific support from old cronyx driver into D> GS> base system? D> D> Short answer: keep POLA. D> D> Longer answer: to keep 4.x systems with _existing_ fr setup up to date, D> non-intuitive and non-atomic patches are now required. D> D> BTW: we have more than one perfectly (for particular meaning of 'perfect', os D> course ;-) working firewall systems, more than on (3) ppp inplementations, and D> more than one software raid implementation. I do not see any harm in existing D> another (working!) implementation for fr then, especially when it does so D> little bloat to the code base. From the point of FreeBSD cronyx driver appeared 1 month ago, and was not supported before. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE