Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:10:27 -0500 From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pppd vs ijppp Message-ID: <199601110010.TAA00304@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate skates.... >> What i meant is that setup is not nearly as important as passing >> packets, which is the bottom line here. The fact that most people feel >> that they need 133Mhz pentiums to run a few modems over a 56k link >> says something about the overhead in the software they're using, and >> the importance of performance. > >Then what in the heck are you arguing about? You claimed that we should >add all of the features in ijppp back into the kernel-mode ppp. If you >*do* know what you are talking about, then why do you want to stuff all >of the user-level stuff into the kernel, such as built-in dial >capabilities, routing, dial-on-demand, etc...? When ever did i say that? I suggested that the benefits offered by pppij be added to pppd so that the kernel level ppp could be used. Much of that functonality can remain in the pppd user process....but running ppp through a tunnel device is preposterous. Theres a separation of functionality, no question, but the datacomm belongs in the kernel....period. db ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601110010.TAA00304>