Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RFC\:\s+PPP\s+over\s+X\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RFC\:\s+PPP\s+over\s+X\s*$/: 136 ]

Total 136 documents matching your query.

1. RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:42:47 -0500 (EST); This is not posted to l-k because i didnt see the need for it. If there is a good reason someone please forward it there. The people in the CC list are in "the know". If people think this should be; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00000.html (13,882 bytes)
2. RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:44:10 -0500 (EST); Me too. I take it that you meant to apply your "channelname" proposal to this? This would mean that pppoxd is some module inside pppd that does the negotiation. I think that for PPPoE at least socket; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00001.html (13,434 bytes)
3. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:15:17 -0800; I agree, especially if you're running a PPPoE session server, where you need hundreds of simultaneous sessions demuxed. Uh, pppd modules can already register options. This has already been discussed; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00002.html (10,636 bytes)
4. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:01:27 -0800; Probably a good idea. If it is going to happen on a vger list it should realy be linux-ppp I really don't see why the channels stuff in 2.3 shouldn't just stay as is - it's really very clean. The rea; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00003.html (16,583 bytes)
5. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:15:01 -0500 (EST); Serving up connections on such a scale brings up some issues. Most importantly, there should be a single process which negotiates all incoming connections. I deal with this in my most recent pppd pat; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00004.html (10,128 bytes)
6. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:24:02 -0800; That's true - ideally I'd like to see pppd look more like apache. Most of the gloabal varaiables could move to a "struct atm_instance" and each one would have its own ppp options, plugins, etc. Idea; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00005.html (10,123 bytes)
7. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:52:33 -0500 (EST); I won't pretend to be an expert on pppd, but I think you'd want to replace "/dev/ppp" with something like a netlink socket. Using a socket would allow you to mux/demux data in a way that you can't do; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00006.html (10,957 bytes)
8. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:07:58 -0500 (EST); Good to see this discussion is happening./ this? yes No the "network-like" skb code is provided by the channel interface. If you use the channel interface, you get skbs. I ma not totaly against using; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00007.html (13,071 bytes)
9. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:15:50 -0500 (EST); You just need to be able to select and/or poll; you dont necessarily need sockets for that I think it looks bad because you were trying to do this on pppd. It should be OK if you did it in say a ppp; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00008.html (9,839 bytes)
10. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:26:27 -0500 (EST); Which interface are you referring to? Netlink sockets or "/dev/ppp" or something else entirely? I'm a bit confused... Adding in more hooks to support plugins would appear to be the way to go. As imp; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00009.html (12,649 bytes)
11. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:35:19 -0500 (EST); I think the bigger issue there is that in such a situation it may not be feasible to maintain a unique character device for each connection. If you've got connections going up and down constantly it; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00010.html (10,766 bytes)
12. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:41:47 -0500 (EST); mitch >I really don't see why the channels stuff in 2.3 shouldn't just mitch >stay as is - it's really very clean. The real work that needs mitch >to be done is to pppd to support plugins that deal w; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00011.html (16,499 bytes)
13. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:44:46 -0500 (EST); Its probably a very specific design issue; off the top of my head -- you could have pppd "connect" invoke you via some IPC eg unix domain sockets; How you handle what happens after is your decision;; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00012.html (9,758 bytes)
14. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:00:36 -0500 (EST); 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 s; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00013.html (11,615 bytes)
15. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:25:02 -0500 (EST); If i was managing the code, i would say it would be easier to manage something that is smaller (especially when it is more than half the size). And the rate at which Linux kernel code is growing, it; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00014.html (12,681 bytes)
16. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 03 Feb 2000 23:03:17 +0100; jamal> -Hard coded for PPPOE -Creating a whole socket family for jamal> just PPPOE is a bad idea (claim: Could make it for PPPOX jamal> with type PPPOE, L2TP etc). What about a generic ´ppp over s; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00015.html (11,944 bytes)
17. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Werner Almesberger <almesber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 23:42:46 +0100 (MET); Minor correction, assuming you means what you get with CONFIG_NETLINK_DEV: the "right" way to use netlink is as a protocol family, not as a device. - Werner -- _______________________________________; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00016.html (9,862 bytes)
18. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:04:33 -0500 (EST); Other than the weird syntax you provided for the socket connect this sounds quiet reasonable to me; domain=pppox, type=pppoe, protocol=0x8864 as an example ... This is what i was saying to Michal (bu; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00017.html (10,383 bytes)
19. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:06:39 -0500 (EST); Thanks Werner ;-> And for the netfilter device i meant the one used to send packets to user space (not sure if it works or is still around); Solaris box, tty terminal, no code to double check. cheers; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00018.html (9,904 bytes)
20. Re: RFC: PPP over X (score: 1): Author: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:12:01 -0500 (EST); Your outline is almost identical to the code I've got right now. Feel free to take a look: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mostrows The problem here is that you need to use bind and/or connect (regardl; /archives/netdev/2000-02/msg00019.html (11,604 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]