From owner-freebsd-atm Sun Feb 9 8:18:32 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-atm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2950037B401 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 08:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B6143FAF for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 08:18:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from arr@watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h19GICP3063644; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 11:18:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from arr@watson.org) Received: from localhost (arr@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with SMTP id h19GIBQ2063602; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 11:18:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: arr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 11:18:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" To: Vincent Jardin Cc: Harti Brandt , "Matthew N. Dodd" , atm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New version of ngATM In-Reply-To: <3E26DAA600DC2A2B@mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr> (added by postmaster@wanadoo.fr) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-atm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Vincent Jardin wrote: :> ARR>How would people compare the current ngATM and current HARP stacks? Is :> it ARR>worth at all to fully port the HARP driver code to the ngATM code :> and just ARR>waste the netatm/ code? :> :> When I catch up with my clip code, then ngATM can everything that HARP :> can (except for SPANs signalling. Does anybody actually still use that?). :> Plus it has UNI4.0 instead of 3.1, it has LAN emulation and it should be :> trivial to support PPPoA, PPPoEoA or what ever crazy combination one could :> think of. : :I already use the HARP stack for PPPoE and PPPoEoA whithout any modification :of the HARP source code ;-) : :> With regard to drivers: I'm going to busdmaify the en driver. I think I :> have an LE155 card somewher here, so I will tackle the IDT driver after :> that. When this is done, we have all that is supported with HARP also in :> ngATM. : :The LE155 board uses the IDT77211 SAR chipset, doesn't it ? Then it is :already supported by the HARP stack, moreover this driver uses DMA. It :already supports UBR and CBR. : :According to me, the HARP stack is a very stable code, it has lot of features :and their drivers are working very well for a long time. If we need to :improve the ATM support of FreeBSD, one should be more focused on the current :code in order to improve the HARP stack and to add some new drivers. : :However, if there are some issues with the HARP stack, then ngATM is a very :good alternative. Nevertheless, I do not see any issues with HARP yet ;-) It :just lacks of people in order to support it. : :FreeBSD has already 2 ATM stacks : a basic one (NATM) and a full featured one :(HARP), why is a third ATM stack required ? : Anyone actually use netnatm from Cranor? So far I see people stepping up for HARP and ngATM, so just curious to hear from those netnatm folks. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-atm" in the body of the message