Re: The fate of ngatm

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:47:51AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 28/4/17 2:00 am, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > As previous threatened, I've removed support for NATM (as well as a
> > remarkable number of remnants of the old ATM framework).  One piece
> > that still remains is the ngatm framework in netgraph.  This includes
> > the ng_ccatm(4), ng_sscfu(4), ng_sscop(4), and ng_uni(4) nodes.
> >
> > These don't attach to physical interfaces and didn't depend on the NATM
> > interface code so I left them alone in the first cut.  My question
> > is, are they useful without physical interfaces?  If so, keeping them
> > doesn't appear to have a high support burden.  If not, we should remove
> > them.
>=20
> I don't know if people are using these now, but at one stage people=20
> were using them to decode/encode atm higher level protocols over an=20
> ethernet transport to implement a PPPoA infrastructure.

Just for clarity, I'm not talking about ng_atmllc(4) which is standalone
and a classic header adding/striping module.

-- Brooks

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZB1xzAAoJEKzQXbSebgfAtycH+QHfuk+9jplr7izrpmpo++uV
LlM6fo12RUCeTIuoRIF6ZC6Ea9kM9/uWQoHMtFWY/oXpjTTf6fR6+Rx9Hz69Rqd7
WggV7P5LRifNymlkAWKRzQ+GaMtahbG/YZx70a6mCBG9dK166JShFdlt0+w9l6BX
2QubKWDuV5PJVNDscBVL1185DHlABN2R5hwwYUPt+6uAhKWWzLirAABMB5scjhUi
fK1u9jFWS7pG1S1Ra4BPfNmSpzu5mFM9g1MYME2ugbbm2VG4dce6n6BS5U1vWeuV
SV3FVxihidIdMjE6TGTSPkM+M3Ywnqdh6M/9B/1hoDWjFaXny7FJOF3dVbg9f5s=
=8Vsm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--