Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 11:18:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> To: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@wanadoo.fr> Cc: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>, atm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New version of ngATM Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030209111642.62603A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3E26DAA600DC2A2B@mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr> (added by postmaster@wanadoo.fr)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030209111642.62603A-100000>