Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:26:13 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010405132320.00c146a0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200104051916.f35JG5n54176@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:38:54 EDT." <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:16 PM 4/5/2001, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: >> I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was >> terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte >> IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology >> be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other >> things to consider as well. The biggest problem, in my case, is whether the technology WORKS. I've been trying PPPoE between two boxes running 4.3-RC2 for several days now, and it either hasn't connected or has caused kernel panics every time. I suspect that the problem is in the "Netgraph" code because of the error messages I'm seeing. Until I can get PPPoE working, I'll have to assign unregistered addresses to the machines at the ends of the tunnel and do NAT. The machines behind the router at the far end of the tunnel will be "NATted" twice.... Slow, but I've got to get the link up. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010405132320.00c146a0>