The fate of ngatm

[Rodney W. Grimes]

-- Start of PGP signed section.
> 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.
> > 
> > I don't know if people are using these now, but at one stage people 
> > were using them to decode/encode atm higher level protocols over an 
> > 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.

Does Juniper have any stake in this ATM code?
Their routers do support ATM interfaces.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org