Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE
From: Kris Kennaway (kris_at_obsecurity.org)
Date: 06/09/03
- Previous message: Kris Kennaway: "Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE"
- In reply to: Rob: "Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE"
- Next in thread: Matthew D. Fuller: "Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 05:52:51 -0700 To: Rob <listone@deathbeforedecaf.net>
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:23:39PM +0930, Rob wrote:
> If I can't get mpd(8) to work, I won't have a choice :-)
>
> The difference between them (as far as I can tell) is that mpd keeps all
> the actual packet handling out of userland, so there's less overhead.
> I've only got 512k/128k ADSL on a Pentium 166, so it doesn't sound like
> ppp(8) will be a bottleneck, based on your experience.
I'd expect you'd never even notice the CPU load. I don't.
> I'm trying mpd because it looks like the 'cleaner' approach - on the
> other hand, it seems to be the minority choice in terms of general
> usage.
Indeed.
Kris
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Kris Kennaway: "Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE"
- In reply to: Rob: "Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE"
- Next in thread: Matthew D. Fuller: "Re: ADSL: Using mpd(8) for PPPoE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
