[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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
    Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-23 00:27    [W:0.027 / U:13.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site