From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 4 3:22:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3F414ED7 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:22:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from home.elischer.org (home.elischer.org [207.76.204.203]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA33568; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:22:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer X-Sender: julian@home.elischer.org To: "Eugene M. Kim" Cc: Brian Somers , Wes Peters , David Gilbert , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PPPoE offer. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Eugene M. Kim wrote: > I personally used this approach for some kernel PPP over TCP tunnels, > and strongly recommend it because now there are many protocols that make > use of PPP (PPTP, PPPoE, PPP over TCP to name a few). If we modified > the kernel PPP to create a new protocol family, we basically would have > to do the same kind of `porting' every time a new protocol (based on > PPP) comes out. Look at the netgraph stuff at ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/archie/netgraph/index.html for how we handle this situation at whistle. julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message