From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 18:54:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 18:53:57 -0400 Received: from team.iglou.com ([192.107.41.45]:45263 "EHLO iglou.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 18:53:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 18:53:34 -0400 From: Jeff Mcadams To: Alan Cox Cc: Paul Fulghum , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SyncPPP Generic PPP merge Message-ID: <20010524185333.B7667@iglou.com> In-Reply-To: <002501c0e48f$ffed1e40$0c00a8c0@diemos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:18:58PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Also sprach Alan Cox >> Instead of using ifconfig to bring an interface up or down, the user >> must now work with pppd. And the net device naming changes (allocated >> by ppp_generic.c instead of using the net device allocated by low >> level driver). >I suspect that bit can be fixed if need be. Its nice to keep a constant >naming between cisco/ppp modes. cisco/ppp autodetect is also possible >and would be rather nice to support Indeed. And let me just throw out another thought. A clean abstraction of the various portions of the PPP functionality is beneficial in other ways. My personal pet project being to add L2TP support to the kernel eventually. A good abstraction of the framing capabilities and basic PPP processing would be rather useful in that project. >> Or is it to *add* generic PPP support to syncppp, leaving (at least >> temporarily) the existing PPP capability in syncppp for >> compatibility? (implying a new syncppp flag USE_GENERIC_PPP?) >Assuming this is a 'when 2.5 starts' discussion I'd like initially to >keep the syncppp api is but the pppd code going via generic ppp - and >yes it would break configs. >Clearly thats not 2.4 acceptable I would agree that such a project would be 2.5 material. I'll try to keep up with things on the list, but if this goes off-list, I would appreciate being kept in the loop if possible. :) Thanks! -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456