Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:48:53 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Frame-Relay support for sppp (Was: FrameRelay support for cx/ctau adapters) Message-ID: <409FEAB5.3050608@cronyx.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040507162633.G61288@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <20040507160253.B61288@woozle.rinet.ru> <20040507121738.GA97302@cell.sick.ru> <20040507162633.G61288@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
Cronyx has it own version of sppp. One of the main difference from
FreeBSD's one that it
has support of FrameRelay. We have tryied to get this code commited
several times but due to
some reasons it wasn't commited (if you grep CVS you may see that it was
commited on vendor
branch, see if_spppsubr.c 1.1.1.2 15 May 1997 14:48:46).
Since cx(4) driver (Cronyx Sigma) was updated, ct(4) (Cronyx Tau) driver
was commited and
cp(4) driver going to be commited, users of Cronyx adapterts started to
ask us about fr support
in FreeBSD's sppp since they do not need to use our patches for adapters
any more. They need
these patches only for sppp, to get fr support.
Since I able to add this support to FreeBSD's support I want to get
some more opinions from
various sides.
Now I have one "yes" and one "no" opinions. My own voice "yes", but
I belive, I should
not count it. ;-)
PS.
Some FAQ :
1. This is not a new code. It is an old code. More over it is not a new
driver,
it is only extension of sppp (4).
2. This code is already maintained, thus it doesn't need any additional
efforts.
3. Yes, netgraph could be used instead, but many of users of Cronyx adapters
prefer to use sppp (not only for fr).
Best regards,
Roman Kurakin
>On Fri, 7 May 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
>GS> D> we're using Cronyx adapters, some of them in FremaRelay mode, which has been
>GS> D> supported by cronyx-made drivers available from vendor site for most of FreeBSD
>GS> D> versions. FR support involves modifications to sppp kernel routines.
>GS> D>
>GS> D> Main driver maintainer is now FreeBSD committer (rik@).
>GS> D> However, during merging cx/ctau into the tree, FR suppport has not been
>GS> D> incorporated. Roman told me there are some objections to these modifications.
>GS> D>
>GS> D> Can I ask for more complete cx/ctau support including FR?
>GS> D>
>GS> D> Please keep me CC'd, as I'm not subscribed to -net.
>GS>
>GS> FreeBSD has support for FR with help of nodes ng_frame_relay and ng_lmi. This
>GS> support is hardware independent. And it works perfectly with cronyx adapters.
>GS> What is a reason for merging hardware specific support from old cronyx driver into
>GS> base system?
>
>Short answer: keep POLA.
>
>Longer answer: to keep 4.x systems with _existing_ fr setup up to date,
>non-intuitive and non-atomic patches are now required.
>
>BTW: we have more than one perfectly (for particular meaning of 'perfect', os
>course ;-) working firewall systems, more than on (3) ppp inplementations, and
>more than one software raid implementation. I do not see any harm in existing
>another (working!) implementation for fr then, especially when it does so
>little bloat to the code base.
>
>Sincerely,
>D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>*** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru ***
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?409FEAB5.3050608>