Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 05:52:51 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Rob <listone@deathbeforedecaf.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE Message-ID: <20030609125251.GA92744@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <009901c32e4b$7a52d6a0$a4b826cb@goo> References: <005d01c32e47$dc282500$a4b826cb@goo> <20030609053525.GA9298@rot13.obsecurity.org> <009901c32e4b$7a52d6a0$a4b826cb@goo>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:23:39PM +0930, Rob wrote: > If I can't get mpd(8) to work, I won't have a choice :-) >=20 > The difference between them (as far as I can tell) is that mpd keeps all > the actual packet handling out of userland, so there's less overhead. > I've only got 512k/128k ADSL on a Pentium 166, so it doesn't sound like > ppp(8) will be a bottleneck, based on your experience. I'd expect you'd never even notice the CPU load. I don't. > I'm trying mpd because it looks like the 'cleaner' approach - on the > other hand, it seems to be the minority choice in terms of general > usage. Indeed. Kris --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+5IMiWry0BWjoQKURAqFTAKCHv1Ry9rN125hmFfMCcqWVwA8IEACffnWK ff4Aa3U9JjS96JcX532WKrE= =Raxv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030609125251.GA92744>