| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RFC: PPP over X |
| From: | Mark Spencer <markster@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:16:45 -0600 (EST) |
| Cc: | 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.GSO.4.20.0002031758030.26740-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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 then used ioctl's on the other technologies to attach their sockets to the PPP devices. An actual channel just implemented a few routines from the PPP layer (like sending and hanging up the PPP channel). In writing the API, I also built up some linkage between channels to standardize how multilink PPP would work, and I would suggest you do the same in your design. Mark |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, Michal Ostrowski |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, Mitchell Blank Jr |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RFC: PPP over X, Michal Ostrowski |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |