From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 26 6:45:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.snickers.org (snickers.org [216.126.90.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D22737B479 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.snickers.org (Postfix, from userid 1037) id D3D773D06; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:45:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:45:37 -0400 From: Josh Tiefenbach To: Terry Lambert Cc: Idea Receiver , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: strange problem of PPPoE + NAT Message-ID: <20001026094537.A75049@zipperup.org> References: <20001025195050.A44709@zipperup.org> <200010260655.XAA12955@usr08.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200010260655.XAA12955@usr08.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 06:55:14AM +0000 Organization: Hah Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > BTW: I believe PPPoE in both Julian and Archie's cases specifically > uses the netgraph PPP implementation, so it's an "all in the > kernel" approach; the problem may be your use of user space code > (i.e. killable code, since you can't kill it in the kernel, only > unlink or unload it). Actually, I dont believe so. At least, ppp(8) merely uses the PPPoE netgraph node, and does all PPP processing in user space, AFAICT. If, however, you're referring to mpd, then yes, that uses the netgraph PPP implementation. > Terry Lambert josh -- "Watching those 2 guys [Bush and Gore] debate is like watching Ben Stein read 'The Story of O'" -- Dennis Miller To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message