From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Jul 6 21: 2:32 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from tsolab.org (dnl.rockefeller.edu [129.85.17.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5857D14F14 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:02:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@tsolab.org) Received: from tsolab.org (ts018d21.hil-ny.concentric.net [206.173.18.129]) by tsolab.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA09206; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 00:06:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dan@tsolab.org) Message-ID: <3782D0C8.B26A8A1B@tsolab.org> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 00:00:08 -0400 From: Daniel Tso X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Chad R. Larson" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PPP References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > A friend has asked me to help him set up a box that will be: > > 1) A demand dial router to his ISP > B) A Network Address Translator for machines on his LAN > > This has probably been discussed before, but would anyone with > some experience doing PPP like to pipe up with the pros and cons > of: > > A) user level PPP with the tunnel device > 2) the Kernel PPP link, with PPPD and NATD > > It looks to me, at first blush, that the user space PPP program > would be easier to configure, and rolls the NAT function into > the same place. Plus, it demand dials without external chat or > kermit scripts. Is the performance similar? Any other things > to look out for? I have been doing this with method A: user PPP with builtin aliasing. With a 33.3K modem (28K connects) or 56K modem (50.3K connects). user PPP on a 486/66 easily saturates the line, with about 30% CPU usage. Pretty easy to set up... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message