Cronyx has it own version of sppp. One of the main difference from FreeBSD's one that it
has support of FrameRelay. We have tryied to get this code commited several times but due to
some reasons it wasn't commited (if you grep CVS you may see that it was commited on vendor
branch, see if_spppsubr.c 1.1.1.2 15 May 1997 14:48:46).
Since cx(4) driver (Cronyx Sigma) was updated, ct(4) (Cronyx Tau) driver was commited and
cp(4) driver going to be commited, users of Cronyx adapterts started to ask us about fr support
in FreeBSD's sppp since they do not need to use our patches for adapters any more. They need
these patches only for sppp, to get fr support.
Since I able to add this support to FreeBSD's support I want to get some more opinions from
various sides.
Now I have one "yes" and one "no" opinions. My own voice "yes", but I belive, I should
not count it. ;-)
PS.
Some FAQ :
1. This is not a new code. It is an old code. More over it is not a new driver,
it is only extension of sppp (4).
2. This code is already maintained, thus it doesn't need any additional efforts.
3. Yes, netgraph could be used instead, but many of users of Cronyx adapters
prefer to use sppp (not only for fr).
Best regards, Roman Kurakin
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
GS> D> we're using Cronyx adapters, some of them in FremaRelay mode, which has been GS> D> supported by cronyx-made drivers available from vendor site for most of FreeBSD GS> D> versions. FR support involves modifications to sppp kernel routines. GS> D> GS> D> Main driver maintainer is now FreeBSD committer (rik@). GS> D> However, during merging cx/ctau into the tree, FR suppport has not been GS> D> incorporated. Roman told me there are some objections to these modifications. GS> D> GS> D> Can I ask for more complete cx/ctau support including FR? GS> D> GS> D> Please keep me CC'd, as I'm not subscribed to -net. GS> GS> FreeBSD has support for FR with help of nodes ng_frame_relay and ng_lmi. This GS> support is hardware independent. And it works perfectly with cronyx adapters. GS> What is a reason for merging hardware specific support from old cronyx driver into GS> base system?
Short answer: keep POLA.
Longer answer: to keep 4.x systems with _existing_ fr setup up to date, non-intuitive and non-atomic patches are now required.
BTW: we have more than one perfectly (for particular meaning of 'perfect', os course ;-) working firewall systems, more than on (3) ppp inplementations, and more than one software raid implementation. I do not see any harm in existing another (working!) implementation for fr then, especially when it does so little bloat to the code base.
Sincerely,
D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
