What you need is something like npppd/pipex which OpenBSD has just imported?
Masao
At Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:43:38 -0600, David Young wrote:
Subject: Re: kernel level multilink PPP and maybe (re)porting FreeBSD netgraph
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:56:31PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > I need advanced kernel-level multilink PPP (MLPPP) support, including
> > the ability to cre
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 02:37:24PM +0100, Michael van Elst wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:16:05PM +1030, Brett Lymn wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 01:09:10PM +0100, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > >
> > > Keeping DEV_SIZE at 512 bytes avoids lots of changes.
> > >
> >
> > Won't that mean th
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:30:20PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> disk devices are accessed in units of 'blocks', a block can be
> any size, however NetBSD makes assumptions in many places that
> a block is 512 bytes or DEV_BSIZE bytes which makes it impossible
> to use devices wit
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 02:28:07PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:07:03 +0100
> From:Michael van Elst
> Message-ID: <20100122070702.ga10...@serpens.de>
>
> | except that there a lot of assumptions that
> | physical block size is the same as DE
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:56:31PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> I need advanced kernel-level multilink PPP (MLPPP) support, including
> the ability to create bundle links via UDP (and maybe TCP) over IP.
Why do you need "kernel-level multilink PPP" support? Do you need to
interoperate with exist
I need advanced kernel-level multilink PPP (MLPPP) support, including
the ability to create bundle links via UDP (and maybe TCP) over IP.
We currently don't have a direct need for PPPoE or tunnelling via PPTP,
L2TP, or direct use of async and sync devices, but of course such
features would likely
> > >FYI, Windows XP creates MBR in the first sector even on a removable
> > >2KB/sec MO disk and it seems to use physical block numbers.
> >
> > I haven't found an official spec for MBR on non-512byte blocks, but
> > so far everyone seems to use the first 512 bytes from LBA 0.
>
> That is my sus
> >The design of FFS is independent from design of our buffercache(9)
> >or all disk drivers, so if FFS has its own "disk block size" value
> >in its superblock, we have to check and convert (or reject)
> >the "FFS disk block size value" for our native I/O size
> >whichever we will choose DEV_BSIZE
