Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:50:41 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC |
| |
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.
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.
Jeff
| |