Subject: Re: no v4, slip this time
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-net
Date: 07/17/2002 15:29:43
> I understand your dislike for the pppd side of PPP.

Yes, now that it's been pointed out (by not only you but someone else,
I forget offhand who), I realize that most (all?) of my problems with
PPP for this application are actually with pppd.

> But, the IP encapsulation stuff can be pretty simple - why not just
> run PPP without LCP, etc. - just use PPP encapsulation.  At least
> stuff like tcpdump will understand it.

That's an attractive option; I didn't know it could be done.  How would
I go about it?

It's not clear whether you're proposing I use some (hidden?) option to
pppd that bypasses most of its code, or write an slattach-alike that is
like a rudimentary pppd and doesn't do all the LCP/IP{,6}CP stuff
(which I think is done in userland - right?), or create a new
pseudo-interface that has an interface like sl but uses PPP's
encapsulation, or what.

Perhaps I'm just exposing my ignorance of the PPP implementation here?

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B