Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:56:28 -0400 From: "Gary T. Corcoran" <gcorcoran@lucent.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@Freebsd.org Subject: Re: More on PPPoE & ADSL (Telstra Bigpond) Message-ID: <39FA081C.3E56D791@lucent.com> References: <F50iFEW6sStwNeKjUbE00001146@hotmail.com> <39F8C29F.D785C588@lucent.com> <39F9210E.B728D4F8@elischer.org> <39F9B679.CA563B9E@lucent.com> <39F9E669.FB8D77D2@elischer.org> <39F9F1FB.F00E686F@lucent.com> <39F9FFAD.2992767D@elischer.org> <39FA0056.8CB7D452@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > > for more info, look at: > > http://www.daemonnews.org/200003/netgraph.html Okay thanks - will do next week when I get a chance. > > but some DSL providers allow you to select from one of several providers > > on a single > > DSL cloud. By allowing multiple sessions you can set up several > > 'redundant' > > links out through the single DSL link, to several > > such providers to (hopefully) get aroung their breakages.. :-) I thought that was the whole (or most of) the idea behind "service names". That is, by specifying the "service name", you could (possibly) choose amongst different ISPs that serve your DSL connection. I get your point if you actually wanted multiple _concurrent_ sessions, my current driver couldn't do it. However I (personally) wouldn't want to pay for several ISPs! :) > > Why should a driver know about PPPOE? They are talking about using it > > on cable systems too... shouldn't it be independent of the driver? :-) Yes, ideally, a driver should NOT know about PPPOE. But since Windows didn't provide it, and it was relatively easy to add it to our driver, I chose that route, and since the code then already existed, kept it in the FreeBSD driver. I suppose one *might* have been able to write an "intermediate" network driver for windows, which I suspect is roughly equivalent to what a netgraph node would provide, but that would have required another learning curve on Windows... ;-) Personally (my opinion only), I dislike PPPoE. It adds a full THIRTY (30) bytes of overhead to every packet you send! And for a (real) DSL link, it's not needed. That is, you really just want to send PPP over ATM (DSL packets get formatted as ATM cells, if you didn't know). Gary 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?39FA081C.3E56D791>