Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:55:49 +0100 From: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> To: Hellmuth Michaelis <hm@hcs.de> Cc: kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE, freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ijppp for isdn, ppp compression, and netgraph (also: load balancing) Message-ID: <20000305185548.A16881@saturn.kn-bremen.de> In-Reply-To: <20000305053245.84D2336AB@hcswork.hcs.de> References: <200003042243.XAA82879@saturn.kn-bremen.de> <20000305053245.84D2336AB@hcswork.hcs.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:32:45AM +0100, Hellmuth Michaelis wrote: > >From the keyboard of Juergen Lock: > > > And the other reason i'm looking at ijppp is ppp compression. It > > currently supports deflate (rfc1979) and predictor1 (rfc1978), which > > should at least help if the other end is running bsd or linux, > > but if your other end is something like an ascend or an external > > router (zyxel, cisco(?), there are probably more that speak this > > protocol), you'd want stac lzs (rfc1974), or if its a wintendo box > > even you'd want M$' special version of that (yes of course they > > invented their own `standard' again.) So my question is, is > > anyone working on this? There is (alpha) code that does this on > > linux, > > > > http://www.ibh-dd.de/~beck/stuff/lzs4i4l/ > > I've looked at that. Its very Linux-centric and i gave up for the moment > when i realized how much work it would be to port it. > > Brian's ppp over i4b does support deflate compression and i get very > good results out of it - too good to put more work into the above URL. > I don't see anything wrong with deflate itself either, its just that when you don't have control over whats at the other end of the link its most of the time useless, most equipment thats out there _if_ it does compression at all still only knows the other protocols. :( > > that seems to be the logical way to do more complex > > stuff like this aodi thing that e.g. the german Telekom wants to use > > for their low-bandwidth 10 DEM/month isdn `flatrate' which they plan to > > introduce around the end of the year. (and _if_ this really works it > > sure will become pretty popular over here as long as all the other `real' > > flatrates are still in the 100 DEM or more range... :/ ) this seems to > > be the current draft: > > - this "flatrate" will only be available to T-Online customers. Since i'm > not such a beast and will probably never become one its of not much use > for me. > well for someone who _could_ use it the 8 DEM more (is it still 8?) for the t-offline account may still be worth it, and i don't think they would even be allowed to force you to do _all_ your ip over their system... (yes that may need some routing tweaks but so be it. :) at least the proposed aodi protocol shouldn't be in the way and i've already had two connections open with i4b at the same time over a single card and it worked as expected. the only problem would be you couldn't dynamically up the bandwith of connections that are already open over the slow link without routing that additional B channel over t-offline too. well unless you start playing with tunnels...) > - my usage of the internet is not much compatible with what this "flatrate" > offers. > hmm imho there's a lot of things a low-bandwidth link can be useful for when all your other links are still metered... :/ think of always getting mail delivered near-immediately at no extra cost as soon as the box is up, or that you'd no longer have to close and re-open things like ssh sessions all the time, or that you could just talk(1) to someone instead of having to pay for a phonecall... (in case anyone wonders: yes those are also still _always_ metered here) and that even while both B channels may be busy with other things. Oh and you could then also get at the box from `anywhere' if you need to, whithout having to make (and pay for) a direct isdn connection or other special precautions cause you'd no longer have to worry about portscanning/flood-pinging script kiddies or other kinds of `accidents' causing insane phone bills when you leave the box online while you can't watch it. (well, assuming you made a decent firewall.) (of course when i look at _my_ usage of the net a 100 DEM 64kbit flatrate will probably still be more economical (*sigh*), but i suspect there are lots of people where this wouldn't be so.) > - the Telecom does not give away anything for free. Check when, why and > most important how you are using the internet: the savings you get using > this "flatrate" does not pay even a fraction of the time and work needed > to implement this - in my eyes. > Well yes someone would have to do the work and it probably won't exactly make him rich either, thats true. :) (but it could make bsd more popular if it gets this before linux...) Regards, -- Juergen Lock <nox.foo@jelal.kn-bremen.de> (remove dot foo from address to reply) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000305185548.A16881>