On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:21:29AM -0800, Randy Devol wrote:
>At 06:21 AM 1/26/99 +0200, Lucio de Re wrote:
>>According to Perry E. Metzger:
>>> 
>>> PPTP is an abortion. I don't know that we *should* support it.
>>> 
>>Give or take the _feasibility_ of suppporting it, there is no better 
>>way to prove that it _is_ an abortion.
>
>Does NetBSD provide any way to create a secure Virtual Private Network?
>Even if it is only supported between NetBSD-based machines, I am interested
>in knowing the options.
>
>BTW, for those of you who are interested, the press release at
>http://www.counterpane.com/pptp.html says analysis found no flaws in the
>protocol itself, only in the Microsoft implementation of it.  Maybe the
>protocol is not the problem. :-)

my point exactly!  :)

it just has the distinct stigma of having microsoft's name on it.

if you look at who's actually writing the internet drafts for it,
microsoft obviously doesn't "own" the protocol.  they just did it
wrong first.

  Network Working Group                                          K. Hamzeh
  Internet-Draft                                     Ascend Communications
  Category: Informational                                       G. S. Pall
  <draft-ietf-pppext-pptp-07.txt>                    Microsoft Corporation
							       W. Verthein
								      3Com
								 J. Taarud
						  Copper Mountain Networks
							      W. A. Little
							    ECI Telematics
								   G. Zorn
						     Microsoft Corporation
							     December 1998
  ...

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."