Subject: Re: Ongoing projects
To: Andrew Doran <ad@fionn.sports.gov.uk>
From: Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com>
List: tech-net
Date: 05/07/1999 14:04:36
Andrew Doran <ad@fionn.sports.gov.uk> writes:
> > 1) I can't believe the performance bit at all. Userland PPP *cannot
> > possibly* keep up with doing ppp at many megabits per second. Yes, we
> 
> You misunderstand. I'm not talking about many megabits per sec, I'm
> talking
> about small devices, although point taken.

PPP is useful for a wide variety of device speeds. Having one PPP
implementation that deals with all of them is probably the most
rational thing.

> >From the ppp(8) manpage below. Yes, probably not a good idea for leased
> line 
> operation, but for operation over analogue/PSTN devices, ppp(8) is great
> (I 
> regularly see 5-30, sometimes 90k *bytes*/sec over 33.6 modem w/ppp(8)).

There's no reason our kernel based version can't do the same thing. We 
have compression algorithms in it already, etc.

> Can 
> we not provide both, and let users decide? ppp(8) has a different
> feature-domain 
> than pppd(8).

What would the point be? Why not provide one that does what people
want instead of two, neither of which does everything people want.