The fate of ngatm

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The fate of ngatm

Brooks Davis-2
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.

-- Brooks

signature.asc (465 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The fate of ngatm

Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:00:29PM +0000, 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.

may be it can be used together w/ USB ADSL modem?
Not sure about suported and existeing modern ADSL USB modem.


_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-atm
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The fate of ngatm

Julian Elischer-5
In reply to this post by Brooks Davis-2
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.
>
> -- Brooks

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.


No idea if it's still being used .

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-atm
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The fate of ngatm

Brooks Davis-2
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.

-- Brooks

signature.asc (465 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The fate of ngatm

Rodney W. Grimes-4
-- 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                                                 [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-atm
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"