Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:09:37 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: hm@hcs.de Cc: freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: i4b and netgraph (was: I4B support for US ISDN?) Message-ID: <199901282009.MAA03412@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <m105nfo-00006RC@hcswork.hcs.de> from Hellmuth Michaelis at "Jan 28, 99 10:23:40 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hellmuth Michaelis writes: > - as long as netgraph is not a standard part of FreeBSD i don't think its > a good idea to move i4b to netgraph. We hope it will become standard someday... > - currently, i4b is relatively self-contained and runs under all BSD's (i've > got even BSD/OS patches for it). Going to netgraph seems to imply > a then necessary namechange from isdn4bsd to isdn4freebsd (or to > package netgraph into the i4b distribution which i don't like at all). Becoming netgraph compatible does not imply losing the ability to run in normal mode... doing this would imply some #ifdef NETGRAPH conditional code though. > - as far as i understood the netgraph docs, they also use function calls > and _no_ message queues for interlayer communication. So going > to netgraph would not solve the mentioned problem. BTW: i once > asked Terry about the queue/function tradeoffs when that was > discussed on the mailinglist and got no reply. This is incorrect -- netgraph supports queueing. > - The ISDN model has a LME (layer management entity) connected to all > layers using a different path to communicate than the interlayer > communication mechanism, and i learned that implementing this is > a must. I don't see how this is being done using netgraph. The LME would send and receive the appropriate control messgages to each of the nodes. > - More, i currently don't see how the isdnd's functionality is brought > to netgraph. I'm unfamiliar with what isdnd does.. but there's nothing in netgraph that you couldn't do from a user mode daemon if you needed or wanted to. > - To my astonishment, i have read in the netgraph docs that Whistle > plans to netgraph-enable the i4b ISDN driver code; i wasn't > aware of that yet since Whistle seem to have its own ISDN stack > and wasn't interested in i4b any longer after a short period of > interest long time ago. That wording is misleading.. we don't have any plans to convert i4b. What I meant was that it would make for a nice project. I'll change the wording. > - The last thing i personally need are 2 versions of i4b, one netgraphized > and one not netgraphized. I don't blame you there :-) Though the differences could be localized to a few key macros. The message based architecture of ISDN and the graph nature of netgraph are very similar. > - There is much more to to do to functionally enhance i4b, to make it more > robust and to fix some bugs in it and i don't have an idea if net- > graphizing i4b brings us more forward with these issues since my > time budget is clearly limited. > > In a word, i'm a bit sceptical. I respect your priorities. I think a netgraph version of ISDN would be nice, time and motivation permitting. I'm not really arguing anything stronger than that. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901282009.MAA03412>