Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 19:45:00 +0100 (MET) From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: john@gateway.net.hk (John Beukema) Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, tomg@fourthgen.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Yet another PPP question Message-ID: <199601171845.TAA01220@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960117220633.9082A-100000@gateway.net.hk> from "John Beukema" at Jan 17, 96 10:08:42 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Is not this CHAP and PAP which are pretty standard even if not in the RFC? > I think it is hard to pretend MS is not there. > jbeukema > > > On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Nate Williams wrote: > [del] > > > > So, M$ TCP/IP stacks are trying to negotiate non-existant features using > > an invalid protocol which only works with their own product. > > > > The solution? Yell and scream to M$ and tell them to use standard > > protocol and quit using useless proprietary extensions. If they want to > > use proprietary extensions, have them put inside other proprietary code. > > > > Nate I once had to use an ISP that uses MS-NT as server machines. I was _very_ glad ijppp supported this non-RFC negotiation stuff. I do sympathise with Nate though.. Wilko _ __________________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Wilko Bulte email: wilko@yedi.iaf.nl |/|/ / / /( (_) Private FreeBSD site - Arnhem - The Netherlands --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601171845.TAA01220>