Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:59:02 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu> Cc: grog@lemis.com, brian@Awfulhak.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Number of TUN devices Message-ID: <199905211359.OAA03405@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 May 1999 08:28:59 CDT." <199905211328.IAA01990@plains.NoDak.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[.....]
> > Why are you thinking of using user PPP for this? As you say, at the
> > data rates you're thinking of, it's not an optimal solution.
>
> no, only the LCP, NCP, authenication, dignostic messages for debugging
> is done in user space. this is small traffic to setup/maintain/tear down
> the connections, especially when you consider we are talking "PVC" in most
> cases. the network traffic will be either directly forwarded to the
> appropriate network stack, quietly discarded, or sent back to the originator
> depending on the state of the link/network protocol.
>
> again, I am dealing with a situation where the packets do not have to
> be processed, unlike the serial PPPs. and on the downside, I lose the
> alias feature found in user PPP (which hopefully natd could fill in).
Ppp now supports a udp transport in synchronous mode. The overheads
are less and throughput is increased by a factor of about 3. It's
only available in -current (and from my web site).
It sounds like you want ppp in sync mode - maybe with additional
device support (see tty.c udp.c tcp.c & exec.c in the current ppp
sources).
> > This is also probably material for -hackers.
>
> moved.
>
> --mark.
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@uk.FreeBSD.org>
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?199905211359.OAA03405>