Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> > Only shortcoming I see so far is that PPPoE cannot attach to "atm0" Unix
> > network interface.
>
> Do you mean that you're trying to run PPPoE over 1483-CLIP? That doesn't
> make any sense since PPPoE needs an ethernet-like transport to funciton
> and 1483-CLIP is not one. PPPoE-over-1483 always uses 1483-bridged.
>
Better question is:
Is there any performance merit in kernelizing both the 1483B to and with the
kernelized PPPoE.
A pppd pppoe-atm plugin perhaps?
ABOUT THE INTERFACE NAME---
We are going to be seeing 1483B to work under PPPoE in form of a IP unix
network interface. But the unix network interface name for this 2468
Bridging encapsulation over ATM is another can of worm.
nas0: Marcell? Want to explain the root of this acronym (Network
ATM Socket?)
atmbr0: ATM Bridge Interface (not bad, Mitch).
mpoa0: Multi-Protocol Over ATM (per se RFC 1483 and RFC 2684) This would
work well with IPv6, IPX and PPPoE and other unusable and unspeakable
protocols.
atm0: Can we safely reused this interface name for sake of simplicity?
I would love to see IP alias on this interface.
I am partial to one of the three in order; atm0 (if possible), mpoa0 or
atmbr0.
It would be nice to share the same ATM interface so that it is possible to
get 1483CIP (aka 1483 Routing), 1483B, PPPoA and PPPoE concurrently with each
PVC/SVC sprouting toward either a unique unix network interface (ie. mpoa0,
mpoa1) or an IP alias interface (i.e. atmbr0:1).
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
