[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: PPP over X

To: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: PPP over X
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:44:46 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxx, Mark Spencer <markster@xxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Marc Boucher <marc@xxxxxxx>, paulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <14489.57797.470801.438102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Michal Ostrowski wrote:

> Serving up connections on such a scale brings up some issues.  Most
> importantly, there should be a single process which negotiates all
> by forking after having established a new connection; the child
> process then handles that connection and the parent continues to
> listen for more connections.  This is an issue since a pppd daemon no
> longer has exclusive access to data over a particular "device".  I
> don't know how this applies to PPPoATM, but I think it would be good
> to agree on what the correct behaviour should be in such situations,
> regardless of the back-end device/protocol.

Its probably a very specific design issue; off the top of my head --
you could have pppd "connect" invoke you via some IPC eg unix domain
sockets; How you handle what happens after is your decision; mutithreading
etc is one example; avoid forks (just my choice).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>