Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-29 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2020/05/28 19:42, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:43:47AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 26/05/20(Tue) 10:31, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > > [...] > > > npppd(8) is server only it can not establish a connection. pppd(8) on the > > > other hand is more client side (but I

Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-28 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:43:47AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 26/05/20(Tue) 10:31, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > [...] > > npppd(8) is server only it can not establish a connection. pppd(8) on the > > other hand is more client side (but I think it can do both). > > Could someone knowledgable

Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-27 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 26/05/20(Tue) 10:31, Claudio Jeker wrote: > [...] > npppd(8) is server only it can not establish a connection. pppd(8) on the > other hand is more client side (but I think it can do both). Could someone knowledgable indicate that in the man pages? Currently there is: npppd – new

Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-26 Thread Sergey Ryazanov
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:22:28AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 25/05/20(Mon) 21:42, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > > > Add dedicated option to activate kernel L2TP acceleration via > > > the pipex(4). The options should be passed by a

Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-26 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
> On 26 May 2020, at 11:31, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > [skip] > > Is pppd(8) still using K function declarations? Can we please add new > functions with ANSI declarations instead and convert the rest as well. > Also it looks like something strange is going on with indentation (just > look at

Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-26 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:22:28AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 25/05/20(Mon) 21:42, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > > Add dedicated option to activate kernel L2TP acceleration via > > the pipex(4). The options should be passed by a L2TP tunnel > > management daemon (e.g. xl2tpd). > > What is the

Re: [RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-26 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 25/05/20(Mon) 21:42, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > Add dedicated option to activate kernel L2TP acceleration via > the pipex(4). The options should be passed by a L2TP tunnel > management daemon (e.g. xl2tpd). What is the difference between npppd(8) and pppd(8)? Aren't those two redundant? Why

[RFC] pppd: add pipex(4) L2TP control support

2020-05-25 Thread Sergey Ryazanov
Add dedicated option to activate kernel L2TP acceleration via the pipex(4). The options should be passed by a L2TP tunnel management daemon (e.g. xl2tpd). This diff is complete, but kernel support in ppp(4) is not ready. --- usr.sbin/pppd/ipcp.c| 5 +++ usr.sbin/pppd/options.c | 82