netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: PPP over X

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFC: PPP over X
From: Henner Eisen <eis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:33:54 +0100
Cc: mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxx, markster@xxxxxxxxx, mitch@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, marc@xxxxxxx, paulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bcrl@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0002081750300.7200-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from jamal on Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:53:15 -0500 (EST))
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0002081750300.7200-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yet another idea:

Why not generalizing (essentially, it is just renaming) the paradigm

   'attaching ppp channel to connected socket'

to

   'attaching/tunneling arbitray protocol over connected socket' 
?

The channel API, although there is 'ppp' in the name prefixes, is very
generic and not exclusivly useful to ppp_generic.c.
It would be possible to write software net_device drivers (e.g. one for
each encapsulation protocol) which communicate the downstream
data by means of the channel API. (The only difference seems that the
channel is not registered for ppp but somewehere else). 

Then, as the generic socket code will use the ppp_channel API anyway,
attaching the socket to a real ppp channel will not be any different
from attaching it to some other software net_device driver. We 

Henner

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