From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jun 26 09:11:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA17110 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17105 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02536; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:10:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:10:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ron G. Minnich" X-Sender: rminnich@terra To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Frame relay and ATM support: virtual interface per vpi? In-Reply-To: <199606261550.LAA21205@etinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >The only nice way i've found to do this is to make each hardware mini > >interface have a corresponding 'if' structure. in practice i doubt very > >much to see more than a fraction of the virtual interfaces used, but you > >never know. I'm planning to allocate these structures dynamically. > You dont want to do this for frame (or anything else) if you dont have to, as it > talks up way too much memory and makes buffering and queuing a nightmare. > Since most FR locations have 1 or 2 VCs, its also a real waste. Yes, it may well be that what we're doing is too out of the ordinary. We don't have queues, and we don't really have buffers in the traditional style: buffers are allocated in units of pages, since we designed mini for integration with the VM. Ah well, I was hoping to fit in ... it's important to fit in, I'm told :-) interesting discussions. Thanks! ron