From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Jul 7 12: 1:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from alice.gba.oz.au (gba-254.tmx.com.au [203.9.155.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C3A414C99 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gjb-freebsd@gba.oz.au) Received: (qmail 12178 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Jul 1999 19:06:04 +1000 Message-ID: <19990707090604.12177.qmail@alice.gba.oz.au> X-Posted-By: GBA-Post 1.03 20-Sep-1998 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 5A91 6942 8CEA 9DAB B95B C249 1CE1 493B 2B5A CE30 Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 19:06:03 +1000 From: Greg Black To: "Chad R. Larson" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PPP References: In-reply-to: of Tue, 06 Jul 1999 17:25:32 MST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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? The kernel ppp implementation is broken in a few ways and seems not to be receiving the same development attention as the user ppp. I have found that user ppp seems to work just as you'd expect without any dramas. -- Greg Black -- or Fight censorship in Australia: To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message