netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: PPP over X

To: Mark Spencer <markster@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: PPP over X
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 11:43:53 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxx, mitch@xxxxxxxxxx, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Marc Boucher <marc@xxxxxxx>, paulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002041824150.14576-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Mark,

I know you said that this is just the way "you did it";
Is there a good reason as to why you did it this way (other than probably
the code being smaller)?
In particular with the Multi-PPP, how does it provide an advantage?
You mention some relationship between the channels for MPPP; i just dont
think that exists today; 
Mind to comment please 
(and whether moving to the socket interface will screw this grand scheme
of things)

cheers
jamal

On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Mark Spencer wrote:

> > Do you mean that the PPP daemon always negotiated PPP over a character 
> > device?  I think we've reached a consensus that pppd should not assume 
> > what kind of device it is negotiating over --- and leave that instead
> > to one of the  plugins that knows all of the details (e.g.: setting up 
> > PPP line discipline for modem connections).
> 
> pppd would run on /dev/ppp and would negotiate the PPP using that file
> descriptor.  What would actually supply the PPP frames to the kernel (and
> thus eventually to /dev/ppp) is up to the kernel driver.  
> 
> That's just how I did it.
> 
> Mark
> 


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