Subject: Re: new altq API (was Re: Changing the PHY status reporting)
To: None <>
From: Mindaugas <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/20/2006 02:13:20
"Thomas E. Spanjaard" <> wrote:
> KAME is basically over now. I doubt the participants still want to 
> control the ALTQ API, especially since it has diverged quite a bit 
> already on OpenBSD. It's good to write a single compatible API, but I 
> think the biggest issue will be 'vendor' support from both camps (pf and 
> ipf) for this new API. Otherwise, we'd have to maintain large patch sets 
> for both imports. Communicating this with the other BSD projects won't 
> be easy, as OpenBSD won't see any reason to change the API (assuming the 
> 'new' API will be different from theirs), and FreeBSD, well, I don't 
> know if they already have a solution for this issue, and how good it is 
> if it exists.

Yes, KAME is over, but IIRC Kenjiro was thinking to project an API
implementation. So just talk about technical realization. Nothing more
about KAME.

Of course I agree that maintaining PF, ALTQ and their API patch sets is
too hard for NetBSD team. So would be great to talk with DragonFlyBSD
and FreeBSD projects about co-operation (because OpenBSD won't). Maybe
there is a possibility to do it and maintain it together.
Else, probably core@ should take a decision what to do. Of course, I
understand that situation is difficult, but I don't think that doing
nothing is a best solution.

Emm.. and where is solidarity between BSDs? ;)