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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
