On 7 Feb 2000, Henner Eisen wrote:
[Very nice diagram and description deleted]
> My summary:
> PF_PPPOE: o.k.
> PF_PPPOx: not o.k. (only o.k. if multiplexing above an existing carrier
> protocol is needed. Maybe the latter case could be
> handled by a generic PF_PPPOX for every such protocol).
My thinking is that the protocol family/domain is really just for
management reasons i.e what you describe as 'carrier' i see to be really
the encap/decap part. For example it might come in through one encap
interface, gets decaped and encaped again to another one (the LAC example
fits well in this scenario).
Another scenario: The packet comes in, it goes through the decap then up
the stack to the approriate socket interface to the user space server for
We should leave the control of what happens to the implementation
of the specific PPPOX;
For this reason i am supporting the PF_PPPOX as a family and the
type to be one PPPOXs eg SOCK_PPPOE and we dont need to implement the
traditional SOCK_STREAM etc. I am saying this without looking at the code
so i could be off tangent.