Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-06 Thread William Palfreman
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there. Three of my machines have the F00F bug; my firewall, my print

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Bob Bishop
Hi, Here's a hint: The Apollo Domain and XNS networking protocols will no longer be offered after Cisco IOS Release 12.2. Information about these protocols will not appear in future releases of the Cisco IOS software documentation set.

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Bob Bishop wrote: Here's a hint: The Apollo Domain and XNS networking protocols will no longer be offered after Cisco IOS Release 12.2. Information about these protocols will not appear in future releases of the Cisco IOS software documentation set.

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ] On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out, if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is more or less just as obsolete

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Tony Finch
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the current TCP/IP stack no longer matches the Stevens books, and given that Stevens is too dead to update the books to the new FreeBSD stack, even if he wanted to, it's useful to have a relatively simple set of code that can be understood without

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Tony Finch wrote: The details might be different but not enough to confuse a competent programmer. Same argument, in favor of the netns code. It's a moot point anyway, I just fixed netns. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Hiten Pandya
Terry Lambert (Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:15:11AM -0800) wrote: Tony Finch wrote: The details might be different but not enough to confuse a competent programmer. Same argument, in favor of the netns code. It's a moot point anyway, I just fixed netns. Sorry to but in, but I don't see why

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread chris corayer
if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there. That's just being silly. ISA support is still very much a requirement. Laptops usually have ISA stuff

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Hiten Pandya wrote: Sorry to but in, but I don't see why this so called bikesheed keeps getting bigger and bigger. The outcome is simple. If your patches function properly, then there is no need to remove netns provided you don't mind maintaining it. If it doesn't have a maintainer, then

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Mark Murray
Terry Lambert writes: Mark Murray wrote: Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the Attic without the fix. Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again. Whatever happened to you

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Mark Murray
Terry Lambert writes: Let' start wth the libalias/natd incremental checksum update code; the code is based on RFC1141, instead of RFC1624. As a result, it get updated incorrectly occasionally, because it's using two's complement instead of one's complement math. Per RFC1642: RFC 1141

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Bob Bishop
Hi At 08:53 5/3/03, Terry Lambert wrote: [...] The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack, for certain. The same is true for netipx (wc -l *.[ch] is almost identical). -- Bob Bishop +44 (0)118

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack, for certain. And it will still be available. It'll just be available in the Attic. The fact that it will get more broken in

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Juli Mallett wrote: * De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ] On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out, if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is more or less

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Doug Barton wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack, for certain. And it will still be available. It'll just be available in the Attic. The fact that it

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: If you want to make it about failure to attract a maintainer, then do that. Actually several people have made this argument, along with the corollary failure to attract a userbase. -- This .signature sanitized for your protection To Unsubscribe:

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Randy Bush
It took about 3 years for the updates to get out there so IPv6 was usable i have yet to see a cisco ios image supporting ipv6 that was usable in production environment. and i have tried hard. but i will admit to not having seen apollo networking for over a decade. but i probably have not

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Doug Barton wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: If you want to make it about failure to attract a maintainer, then do that. Actually several people have made this argument, along with the corollary failure to attract a userbase. I would claim that non-working code *repelled*

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Doug Barton
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: Doug Barton wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack, for certain. And it will still be available. It'll

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Mark Murray
Terry Lambert writes: Peter Wemm wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. [ ... lots of trivial to fix

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ] Terry Lambert writes: Peter Wemm wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Petri Helenius
i have yet to see a cisco ios image supporting ipv6 that was usable in production environment. and i have tried hard. This is getting OT but on the subject of repelling users, they┬┤re probably trying hard to repel their users to the vendor J boxen. but i will admit to not having seen apollo

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Mark Murray
Juli Mallett writes: This crap is *s* trivial to fix, it's easier to fix than to watch you guys bitch about it not being fixable. Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix? compile-only would be a good state to leave the code in the attic. Only if it

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Mark Murray wrote: Terry Lambert writes: Peter Wemm wrote: Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ] Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Mark Murray
Terry Lambert writes: Mark Murray wrote: Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix? Is tested a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it stay in the tree? Both. Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to remove all code that does not meet that

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Petri Helenius wrote: seems to me that one useful question is whether the netns code being there non-trivially complicates maintenance and/or reliability of other code, and can i compile or module it out if the bits it occupies really bothers me? This is probably the right question.

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Mark Murray wrote: Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the Attic without the fix. Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again. Whatever happened to you broke it, you fix it?

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Terry Lambert
Mark Murray wrote: Terry Lambert writes: Mark Murray wrote: Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix? Is tested a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it stay in the tree? Both. Cool. Then I have a long list of things that can be fixed or

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread M. Warner Losh
De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ] On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out, if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is more or less just as obsolete

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-05 Thread Petri Helenius
M. Warner Losh wrote: ISA support is not obsolete. All new PCs still have ISA busses. They might not have ISA Expansion Bus Slots, but they all[*] still connect their serial ports, parallel ports, and mouse/keyboard ports via ISA. Not to mention i8254 which gets to be major pain if ACPI

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Terry Lambert
Mike Barcroft wrote: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim Robbins wrote: Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the Attic? Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Mike Barcroft
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mike Barcroft wrote: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim Robbins wrote: Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the Attic?

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Peter Wemm
Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. In file included from ../../../netns/idp_usrreq.c:51: ../../../netns/ns_pcb.h:82:

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Wemm writes: Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. Could we possibly move Terry to the

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Terry Lambert
Peter Wemm wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ] Tell

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-04 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ] Peter Wemm wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry: will you please check your facts

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Mark Linimon
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you guys happy? Yes, as will anything else that cuts down on the metadiscussions and increases the quality of the codebase. mcl To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-04 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ] On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you guys happy? Yes, as will anything else that cuts

[PATCH] make netns compile cleanly (was Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Terry Lambert
Terry Lambert wrote: Peter Wemm wrote: Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ] Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you guys happy?

Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Peter Wemm
Terry Lambert wrote: Peter Wemm wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to the Attic? Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. [ ... lots of trivial to fix

Re: [PATCH] make netns compile cleanly (was Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version

2003-03-04 Thread Peter Wemm
Terry Lambert wrote: Terry Lambert wrote: Peter Wemm wrote: Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds to find out that it doesn't even compile. [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ] Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch.