From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org  Mon May  1 17:13:51 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816ECD598D4;
 Mon,  1 May 2017 17:13:51 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net)
Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 688641F04;
 Mon,  1 May 2017 17:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net)
Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id v41HDofL091029;
 Mon, 1 May 2017 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
 (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost)
 by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id v41HDohb091028;
 Mon, 1 May 2017 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <201705011713.v41HDohb091028@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: The fate of ngatm
In-Reply-To: <20170501160403.GB77098@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
CC: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org,
 freebsd-atm@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 17:13:51 -0000

-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:47:51AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On 28/4/17 2:00 am, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > As previous threatened, I've removed support for NATM (as well as a
> > > remarkable number of remnants of the old ATM framework).  One piece
> > > that still remains is the ngatm framework in netgraph.  This includes
> > > the ng_ccatm(4), ng_sscfu(4), ng_sscop(4), and ng_uni(4) nodes.
> > >
> > > These don't attach to physical interfaces and didn't depend on the NATM
> > > interface code so I left them alone in the first cut.  My question
> > > is, are they useful without physical interfaces?  If so, keeping them
> > > doesn't appear to have a high support burden.  If not, we should remove
> > > them.
> > 
> > I don't know if people are using these now, but at one stage people 
> > were using them to decode/encode atm higher level protocols over an 
> > ethernet transport to implement a PPPoA infrastructure.
> 
> Just for clarity, I'm not talking about ng_atmllc(4) which is standalone
> and a classic header adding/striping module.

Does Juniper have any stake in this ATM code?
Their routers do support ATM interfaces.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org