Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:41:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> To: Stefan Grefen <grefen@carpe.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, atm@freebsd.org, hm@kts.org, drochner%zelux6.zel.archer@cmr.kiev.ua, kfa-juelich.de@alpo.whistle.com, dennis@etinc.com, Chuck Cranor <chuck@maria.wustl.edu>, Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: VC support, *BSD and atm/frame/isdn Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960923133523.17698I-100000@terra> In-Reply-To: <1892.843437138@hex.grefen.carpe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've added chuck to the this CC: list. Also just added jason, I'm hoping that the fact that we're mixing Jets and Sharks is not a problem :-) > In message <3244E619.ABD322C@whistle.com> Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > Ron, You once indicated that you prefered the etinc style of > > things, where each VC became a separate interface, and indead > > I've been using that style of things here myself. but > > you've been recomending chuck's work, and I see that it has a single > > interface for the hardware, and uses routing tables > > and llinfo (arpish) information to connect VCs with > > logical connections. > > Have you changed your mind? or do you consider the two approaches > > to be reconcilable? I still like IF per VC. Thus I am hoping to see IF per VC added to chuck's code or to the system itself in some way. Jason Thorpe of netbsd has some good ideas in this area. I have looked at chuck's code quite a bit and feel that it is not incompatible with IF per VC. > > I have some code to make the interface/per VC approach > > more generic (i.e it can be easily applied to any low level driver > > to support VCs by creating interfaces as needed etc.) I'm interested. The card I'm building is going to require that a virtual interface per vc work in some way. thanks julian, this is really interesting! ron
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.960923133523.17698I-100000>