Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:13:33 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: vistua@sdf.lonestar.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pppd crashes, was: kde-freebsd Message-ID: <20070209081333.GA834@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <45CBA137.7050701@isp.com> References: <45CBA137.7050701@isp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <johnzw@isp.com> wrote: >functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several >tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not. Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical) advantage over user ppp: Network data is not pushed through the kernel/userland interface an additional two times. This is irrelevant for low-speed modem interfaces but could be significant for PPPoE on high-speed broadband. Keep in mind that a firewall host is likely to be a slow box - either a pensioned-off desktop or a mini-ITX style system. >FreeBSD is NOT Linux, and SHOULD NOT attempt to model it. FreeBSD is BSD >UNIX! Isn't that the WHOLE POINT (pardon my shouting) for our existence? I'm not sure I see where Linux comes into this. Looking back into history, it seems that both ppp(4) and ppp(8) arrived fairly close together. It appears that ppp(4) was a port of the portable ppp-2.2 code - the same code as used in SunOS AFAIR. --=20 Peter Jeremy --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFzC0t/opHv/APuIcRAo4nAJ45atKFIw/isAEn0cuSHhiu3+pYQgCdF7kO sznULuEfPqjgQ9Wn8lBUg7Q= =mviB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070209081333.GA834>