Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:04:49 +0100 From: Joerg Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, vak@cronyx.ru Subject: Re: kern/11238, kern/14848, kern/21771, sppp patch's patch_id #1 Message-ID: <20011108230449.B75044@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <3BEAA112.6080001@cronyx.ru>; from rik@cronyx.ru on Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 06:13:22PM %2B0300 References: <000901c1134b$827a69a0$48b5ce90@crox> <3BDABF7B.4060808@cronyx.ru> <3BE24EE4.2020506@cronyx.ru> <20011102192916.A43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BE3ED17.3060603@cronyx.ru> <20011103182927.F43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BE7E1E5.4040500@cronyx.ru> <20011106212839.K43204@uriah.heep.sax.de> <3BEAA112.6080001@cronyx.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Roman Kurakin wrote: > I didn't want to neglect your's part, I just want to say that we (me > and Serge) also feel responsibility for this code and we keep on > development of it. That's nice! > >What do you think? > I don't think that they should be broken out completely. Physicaly, > yes it will be better to split them into separate files (core, ppp, > fr, cisco). From my point of view (Serge's as well ) logically it > should be a single whole. It can be called "sppp" from the > historical reasons, but I think now it is "sp" - "Synchronous > Protocols". Hmm, well, i don't fully agree with that. For example for ISDN, it doesn't make any sense to have the FR and Cisco framing code in the kernel at all, just PPP is needed. I also don't see much benefit from sharing a single frontend, except perhaps to share the same interface name, regardless of the underlying framing protocol. > spppcontrol should became spcontrol, interact with sp-core, allow to > switch between protocols and set their parameters. Right now, spppcontrol is only needed for PPP anyway (and it's basically an extension to the ifconfig command, but i wouldn't bloat ifconfig for that very specific purpose). Do FR and Cisco really need any additional parameters that cannot be passed via a simple ifconfig? But i don't care much, either version is OK for me. Even the version with a shared fronted (i. e., interface name) could keep the actual framing implementations optional -- after all, IP, IPv6, IPX etc. are also options that would all affect that code. The remainder can easily handled by some #ifdefs. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011108230449.B75044>