| To: | Mark Spencer <markster@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: PPP over X |
| From: | Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:56:47 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxx, mitch@xxxxxxxxxx, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Marc Boucher <marc@xxxxxxx>, paulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002040955030.14576-100000@marko.marko.net> |
| References: | <Pine.GSO.4.20.0002031758030.26740-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002040955030.14576-100000@marko.marko.net> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Mark Spencer writes: > I've been following your discussion for some time now. The way I did PPP > generically when I implemented it long ago was with a character device. I 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). Michal Ostrowski mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, Mark Spencer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, Mark Spencer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, Mark Spencer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |