lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC
    Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > Paul Fulghum wrote:
    >> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
    >>> It's complex, I think kernel interface to generic HDLC would mean more
    >>> code than PPP implementation required for fixed lines.
    >>> Additional requirement - userspace daemon with additional plugin - may
    >>> not be the best thing for fixed lines either.
    >>>
    >>> That would break backward compatibility, too.
    >>
    >> I maintain both pppd and generic HDLC PPP
    >> interfaces for the synclink drivers.
    >> I would like to have a single PPP implementation,
    >> but what Krzysztof writes about compatibility and complexity
    >> (both in coding and user configuration) is a real issue.
    >>
    >> Many customers who choose to use generic HDLC PPP are *dead*
    >> set against the added complexity and (user space)
    >> components of using pppd even though it has more features.
    >> I say that having tried to persuade such users to use pppd.
    >> The response is usually "support the simpler generic
    >> HDLC PPP way of doing things or we will go elsewhere".
    >> Others require the extra features of pppd.
    >>
    >> I understand customer desires are not always rational
    >> or a primary concern when making these architectural
    >> decisions, but I know forcing the extra complexity and
    >> components of pppd on generic HDLC users will cause a
    >> lot of anger and defections.

    Are there technical reasons or is the complexity just a lack of familiarity?

    > The fact that Krzysztof's solution was _small_ and _clean_ and easily
    > maintainable was the reason I merged it [into my tree].
    >
    > IMO sometimes "one size fits all" is not the best solution.

    I guess what caught my eye is a PPP control protocol implementation
    being in the kernel. I'd seen syncppp before but I assumed it was there
    for legacy reasons. A while ago there seemed to be strong desire to move
    control protocols such as bridge spanning tree into userspace. Is this
    no longer the case?

    --
    James Chapman
    Katalix Systems Ltd
    http://www.katalix.com
    Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-23 00:27    [W:0.024 / U:0.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site