From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 27 15:02:14 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id PAA12972 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:02:14 -0800 Received: from hermes.cybernetics.net (hermes.cybernetics.net [198.80.51.103]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA12950 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:02:04 -0800 Received: (from james@localhost) by hermes.cybernetics.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) id SAA20578; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:13:02 -0500 From: James Robinson Message-Id: <199502272313.SAA20578@hermes.cybernetics.net> Subject: Re: pppd inactivity timeout? To: tom@haven.uniserve.com (Tom Samplonius) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:13:01 -0500 (EST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Tom Samplonius" at Feb 27, 95 01:49:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 673 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Can you have multiple iij-ppp processes runing? Is iij-ppp more > efficient/faster than pppd + kernel ppp? I believe so -- you specify the number of concurrent tunnel devices at kernel config time (paralells the pseudo-device ppp N line). As for more efficient, I don't know, not having done any head-to-head battles with the two. I found managing one connection to be simpler that with pppd -- after the few kinks were worked out, I have something starting it in /etc/rc.local, and the modem is brought up / down whenever necissary -- completely hands free. As for managing things like multiple user dialin, YMMV, but it will support being a server. James