[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: PPP over X

To: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: PPP over X
From: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:15:17 -0800
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxx, Mark Spencer <markster@xxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Marc Boucher <marc@xxxxxxx>, paulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <14489.34346.789910.342715@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:44:10AM -0500
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0002021030520.22723-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14489.34346.789910.342715@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> I think that for PPPoE at least sockets (of some form) are the way to
> go, because with a sockets approach we have code that maintains
> consistent semantics.

I agree, especially if you're running a PPPoE session server, where
you need hundreds of simultaneous sessions demuxed.

> This does raise the issue of how options are treated wrt modules; we
> could allow modules to register their own option namespace (e.g.:
> allow for channel specific options such as "pppoe.ac_name").

Uh, pppd modules can already register options.

> Thus we would allow for each channel module to register an options
> namespace and functions for connect, disconnect, and "devicename"
> recognition.

This has already been discussed among the PPPoA folks (i.e. 
mostly Jens and myself :-)  Basically we need to add a
few hooks to pppd-2.3.11 to allow all the tty-specific
code to be worked around by a module.

>  > We should merge also the PPP over ATM already implemented using Michals
>  > idea.
> I'd appreciate it if somebody would send me pointers to relevant
> code so I can see what things are like in PPPoATM land (and how they
> relate to PPPoE).

It's a little rough (i.e. it currently takes the "big stick" approach
to making pppd work instead of the module-style detailed above)
The kernel-side stuff (which is my fault) shows how simple adding
a protocol to the ppp_generic stuff can be.  Ignore the ATTACH_ENCAPS
ioctl - I was smoking something when I decided I needed that...
really setting the encapsulation should be a seperate ioctl (like
setting the tty options in ppp_async works)

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