jamal writes:
>
> So iam saying that because it is a lot of code.
> You might have a point -- i still havent seen it.
>
> mitch >> -Creating a whole socket family for just PPPOE is a bad idea
> mitch >
> mitch >I don't think so - it has its own addressing, so it needs
> mitch >its own address family.
> mitch >
>
> Bad reason.
>
What's the difference between adding a new socket family and adding a
new tty-device type? Yes, a tty-device will probably require less
infrastructure code (since sockets have a richer interface to
support). Aside from lines of code what's the difference?
>
> And what about PPP-over-Frame, PPP over UDP ;->
> Create a new socket family for each?
Just off-the top of my head, you may be able to support PPP over UDP
simply by adding the appropriate ioctls into the UDP socket code.
You may have a good point about PPPoATM --- there may be enough
similarities between PPPoE and PPPoATM to justify code
sharing. (Though I'm just speculating here because I haven't had a
chance to go through the code thoroughly yet.)
>
> You need to have both a connect and disconnect; It could be via plugins
> or the already provided features of "connect" or "disconnect"
>
Perhaps the existing "connect"/"disconnect" options should be
integrated into the plugin/hook mechanism. (That is, recognizing one
of these options registers an appropriate hook.) One may be able to
do all of the options parsing upon starting up pppd , use the options
to set hooks and then just rely on the hooks instead of checking
whether or not a given option is set.
(It's amazing just how little one can accomplish in an afternoon when
there's e-mail to read/write.)
Michal Ostrowski
mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|