From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Carlson Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:43:03 +0000 Subject: Re: PPP state machine Message-Id: <16592.16471.446265.776880@carlson.workingcode.com> List-Id: References: <1087365446.1118.10.camel@Bhaskar> In-Reply-To: <1087365446.1118.10.camel@Bhaskar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org Bhaskar-ROCSYS writes: > Hi > First of all thanks for the response. > > To answer to big question of "Why?", farsync card that I am using has 4 > interfaces. And the application in which i am working on may need all > the 4 interfaces to be up. > If I have to use the existing code, then I need to run 4 different > instances of pppd. Right. Is having four daemons a problem? It makes the links easy to administer and configure. What's the problem being solved? > And if I want to use the same code, then I need to > go for a design similar to pppoe. For such design i need to write code > both in kernel space and user space. Since you're talking about sync PPP, I don't understand the reference to PPPoE. PPPoE is a bit of an ugly hack that involves (on Linux) multiple trips in and out of the kernel for the data path. I don't know why you'd want to do that. The user space daemon already supports running on sync ports, and the implementation is efficient -- it doesn't involve the pty tricks as done for PPPoE. The data path is all in the kernel. As far as I can tell, you don't need to change anything in user space. You just need a sync driver for your card. > I decide to stick to kernel space and implement the complete state > machine in kernel space. I am only interested in state machine. Once > this is done I will initiate the state machine from the sync ppp code. > > I think for implementing the state machine is independent of the mode. In that case, best of luck.