jamal wrote:
> Nobody is suggesting to touch the generic stuff
Ok, it wasn't clear to me what was being proposed for 2.3.
> Nobody is arguing about that. In 2.2 it is out of question. tty
> is the only answer.
Why? Instead of going through the effort of individually converting
all the PPPoX modules to use tty, why not just backport the
channels stuff? Or maybe implement the kernel-land channel API
on top of ttys? (ick!)
> And just because some protocol needs a mux/demux interface does
> not equate it to sockets; have you thought of using netfilter
> modules? And why not, since they can provide you with nice mux/demux
> interface?
Maybe I'm not familiar with netfilter enough, but isn't it just
a rules-based engine for matching packets? So if I had, say, 500
PPPoE sessions going we'd have a painful O(n) search through the
rules list trying to match the right one.
> For PPP over ATM it might actually make sense to do the VCC mux/demux
> socket(AF_ATMPVC, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) as you do because you already have the
> VCC being mapped to the socket by design. i.e you did not create the
> AF_ATMPVC just so that you can do PPP over it unless i am totaly
> misunderstading the reasoning behind the AAL5 semantics.
That's correct.
> mitch >> We are all curently in violent agreement that discovery should be
> mitch > in
> mitch >> user space (includes Michal).
> mitch >
> mitch >Then I'll be the violent dissenter, I guess. I don't think
> mitch> discovery
> mitch >is analagous to ARP (which also has a right to be in the kernel,
> IMO)..
> mitch >it's more analagous to TCP connect.
>
> So why dont you move OSPF to the kernel? It has its own addressing,
Does it? If it does then I've _never_ seen multiple OSPF sessions
coexisting on the same physical network (and I doubt that gated even
would support such a thing). OSPF is just a multicast IP protocol,
so it makes sense to use generic IP sockets.
> mitch >> family, tty device, a new char device etc.?
> mitch >
> mitch >Depends on the "X" in PPP-o-X!
> mitch >
> mitch > tty: can talk to a tty device just like now
> mitch > PPPoE: new socket family
> mitch > PPPoA: ATM_PVC socket
>
> And what about PPP-over-Frame, PPP over UDP ;->
> Create a new socket family for each?
PPP-over-Frame: I'm not familiar with the frame relay support, but
I think a reasonable implementation would be a socket
family to open a DLCI (analagous to ATM's SOCK_ATMPVC)
PPP-over-UDP: Turns out UDP already has its own socket family.
Bonus.
It's true that L2TP and PPTP might need special-purpose socket family.
-Mitch
|