Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: gouders@et.bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de Cc: freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG, hank@musashi.et.bocholt.fh-ge.de Subject: Re: X.25 (X.31/b) support with i4b Message-ID: <200007212029.NAA05139@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <200007202038.WAA13325@musashi.et.bocholt.fh-ge.de> from "gouders@et.bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de" at "Jul 20, 2000 10:38:28 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
gouders@et.bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de writes: > I am working on a project that involves an X.25 connection over ISDN > using X.31/b (D-channel) - this situation is fixed, I'm not able to > modify it. > > The project is a kind of prototyping where an existing (slow and > erroneous) solution on an NT box should be replaced by whatever thing > is better. > > I would like to use FreeBSD for that purpose and am now thinking, if I > should use some active card (that supports the requested protocolls by > itself - even under FreeBSD) or a passive card in which case > - as far as I found out - some work is necessary to make i4b > supporting the protocols I need. > > In the latter case I somewhat have the feeling that there would be > some people who would be happy to hear if i4b would be enhanced that > way, but, to be honest, I have not the faintest idea about the > dimensions of work involved, or if there would be difficulties to get > documentation without which there is no chance to do such enhancements > or the like. > > I would be glad to receive any suggestions concerning the > passive/active choice as well as the possibility of an enhancement of > i4b (which I of course would be willing to try to do if it is regarded > worth it). Here's a possibility.. netgraph, of course :-) Helmuth has already prototyped a 'netgrap-ified' version of i4b where the 2 B channels are available as netgraph hooks. It shouldn't be too hard to add another hook that connects to the D channel using the 'packet data' discriminator. The rest of i4b could remain unchanged. Then you can write the X.25 stack as a separate netgraph node, which would be a useful thing to have more generally. This may be the easiest way to do things. What you would like to avoid is having to deal with modifying or recreating the device driver(s) for the various hardware; instead let i4b handle 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?200007212029.NAA05139>