Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 09:03:00 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: dme@zigzag.org Cc: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Yet another PPP question Message-ID: <199601171603.JAA08212@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199601171105.LAA19296@forbidden-planet.netlab.london.sco.com> References: <199601170252.UAA03134@fourthgen.com> <199601170511.WAA07206@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199601171105.LAA19296@forbidden-planet.netlab.london.sco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : Thank M$ for this. Basically, Microsoft asked for some extensions to > : the PPP protocol which were denied by the IETF for valid reasons. (The > : extensions didn't belong at that lawyer and should have been part of a > : separate protocol). Rather than being a good net-citizen, they ignored > : the results and implemented them anyway. > > i don't think that this is actually the case. 802b is the protocol id > for ipx over ppp. 803f is the protocol id for netbios over ppp. (see > rfc 1700). win95 supports all of these over ppp, whereas the freebsd > ppp supports only lcp, ipcp, upap and chap in 2.1R. Hey, I'm just repeating what I know. The extensions that M$ TCP/IP are asking for were denied by the IETF. For more details, see the BSDi mailing lists. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601171603.JAA08212>