Hello Sergio,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:53:52PM -0300, Sergio R. Caprile wrote: > Something is not clear to me here... > "PPPoS" might be confused with PPP over SONET/SDH > You guys are talking about plain old PPP, RFC-1661, Point-to-Point > Protocol, Exactly, I known it's a little bit confusing, we are using PPPoS on lwIP as a meaning for PPPoSerial, you are right PPPoS is oftenly used for PPPoSONET elsewhere. > which (by definition) works over any point-to-point link, as long as > it is full-duplex and can carry bytes (octets). Full-duplex or half-duplex actually, radio links are mostly working in half-duplex condition. > I guess "point-to-point" and "peer-to-peer" can be considered > equivalent in this aspect. So... Please forgive my ignorance, I don't > know what a SwMi is (even less a centralized one) ;^) PPP runs on > telephone modems and serial ports, although, as Sylvain cleverly > points out, SLIP will have way less overhead, both in bandwidth and > code size. > > Perhaps confusion comes from the way cell modems capture > PPP by "dialing" a fake number ? Or because of authentication with > PAP/CHAP ? As long as the two end points can see each other, you can > establish a PPP link or a SLIP link. You don't need to "dial" or > "login" to have PPP working. Authentication is not mandatory, you can > bypass it. Indeed !, thanks for pointing that out, this is obvious for me but I guess this isn't actually obvious at first sight on PPP. Sylvain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
