Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:01:42 -0400 (EDT) From: spork <spork@super-g.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PPPoE Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.00.9910031557440.3189-100000@super-g.inch.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.991001164619.1613H-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is from a company that sells win/mac/linux PPPoE implementations to ISP's (I came here after browsing the linux source on Sympatico's website). Seems like a decent list of links: http://www.nts.com/library/tlpppoe.html There's a bit of info from sympatico at: http://www.hse.sympatico.ca/en/community/download.htm Charles On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > > > It seems more and more ADSL providers in the US are moving from bridged > > > IP over ethernet to PPP over Ethernet as they dump whatever clunky > > > solutions they started with and move to the RedBack "subscriber management > > > system". The idea it seems is to simulate the familiar dialup connection. > > > This lets you hand out dynamic addresses, dump idle users, discourage > > > servers, track usage, hamper NAT, and (the relevant part) discourage > > > people from connecting with anything but "supported" OS's. > > > > Uh, as one of the folks responsible for driving PPPoE development, I can > > assure that the last part of your remark wasn't one of the goals we had. > > It was, in fact, time-to-market given the existing bridged-ethernet > > capable hardware out there. It was also to support simultanous connections > > to different service providers, and with different levels of service. Think > > low-end, consumer user vs. work-at-home teleworkers. Why shouldn't they > > be able to use the same ADSL pipe to support concurrent access to both > > e.g., AOL for the kids (that you're paying for yourself) AND > > higher-performance > > access that your employer is paying for. > > > > > Is there anyone actively working on PPPoE for FreeBSD? I don't like the > > > whole concept of wrapping so many frames inside each other, but it would > > > be a shame if a bunch of folks with FBSD gateways for their home nets had > > > to move to Win98 and its' ICS (Internet Connection Sharing). Blech. > > > > > > Could user/kernel ppp be modified? How does this work anyhow? Is there > > > an ethernet frame type for PPPoE? How close do you have to get to the > > > ethernet driver to send PPPoE frames? Can any existing PPP implementations > > > easily handle a few megabits/sec on older hardware? > > > > We did a proof-of-concept implemention starting with the user-mode PPP > > daemon and using BPF to put frames on and off the wire, with no kernel > > changes. This happened to be done on a BSDI system, but that's really > > not at all significant. > > > > I observed once before that the Whistle netgraph stuff is an ideal > > sort of solution for this type of problem where you're really concerned > > about performance, and don't want to context switch into a user process > > for each packet. > > I hope to start work on a netgraph/PPPoE module in the next day or so.. > do you have any suggested reading? > > > > > louie > > (aka louie@UU.NET) > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.00.9910031557440.3189-100000>