tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]


On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:38:57AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:

> > I am not sure what should be done with slip(4).  It is possible that,
> > by now, it should be removed too.
> I would argue against that.
> Some years back, I had occasion to want to network two machines over
> about ten feet of serial line (I forget why).  I spent msot of an
> afternoon trying to make it work with PPP, but was unable to come up
> with a configuration that correctly brought the link back up for every
> comobination of reboot orders I tried.  SLIP, on the other hand, Just
> Worked - very much "too simple to break".
> It's possible that my failure with PPP was caused by ignorance of some
> magic option I needed to set somewhere.  But it was still a failure,
> and if someone with my level of networking experience failed to make it
> work after an entire afternoon of trying, it is at the very least more
> difficult than it should be, and for some applications SLIP is an
> eminently workable alternative - especially with v6 support (see

I've never had an issue getting PPP working, especially without
authentication - it's a piece of cake. But then, I grew up using PPP and
have never had to use SLIP, beyond testing changes to if_slip.c on NetBSD...

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index