From owner-freebsd-net  Thu Apr 20 14:23: 3 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0482437B543; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu)
Received: (from wollman@localhost)
	by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06496;
	Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from wollman)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <200004202122.RAA06496@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: NETGRAPH in GENERIC?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000420134005.32667F-100000@fledge.watson.org>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000420134005.32667F-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

<<On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:43:22 -0400 (EDT), Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> said:

> I was wondering what objections there would be to such a change, and
> whether people think this is a good idea.

This sounds like a good idea to me.  I'm not particularly fond of
Netgraph, personally, but it's a good deal better than the
alternatives.  (If cable-modem open access comes about, expect to see
those vendors doing PPPoE as well.  Ick.)

-GAWollman



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message