From owner-freebsd-net Fri Mar 26 17:43:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from dnai.com (dnai.com [207.181.194.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44BE14F10 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:43:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from miket@dnai.com) Received: from einstein (dnai-207-181-255-38.dialup.dnai.com [207.181.255.38]) by dnai.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA01437 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:43:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990326173538.00a46490@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: miket@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:42:15 -0800 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org From: Mike Thompson Subject: PPP as a bridge over the Internet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've been considering using FreeBSD 2.2.8 with PPP OVER TCP to bridge two remote private networks over the Internet. The following caveat appears in the PPP man page. Does anyone have real-world experience with this being a problem? "The networks are effectively bridged - the underlying TCP connection may be across a public network (such as the Internet), and the PPP traffic is conceptually encapsulated (although not packet by packet) inside the TCP stream between the two gateways. The major DISADVANTAGE of this mechanism is that there are two "guaranteed delivery" mechanisms in place - the underlying TCP stream and whatever protocol is used over the PPP link - probably TCP again. If packets are lost, both levels will get in each others way trying to negotiate sending of the missing packet." Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message