Re: [lwip-users] Fw: Re: [lwip-members] PPP??

[Marc Boucher]

Hi,

I would like to rectify a few incorrect statements
made by Paul below:

- The PPP code I ported to lwIP actually comes from BSD originally.

- To support PAP no crypto functions are required, much less OpenSSL.

- For CHAP, only MD5 hash routines are necessary, but they aren't very big
(4 functions).

- CCP is very rarely used and not supported by the current code,
but it wouldn't be difficult to add if you can afford the extra size.

- In many applications, chat functionality isn't required.

- The BSD PPP has been improved throughout the years but it
was useful from the very beginning.

I would agree that netif/ppp is the right place for the code;
however just before checking it in please email me for the latest
version; we have made quite a few fixes and improvements since.

Regards
Marc


On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:39:02AM -0500, David Haas wrote:
> I also believe that the original ka9q implementation has a compatible 
> license. Lot's of people started with ka9q when developing PPP.
> 
> David.
> 
> 
> Jani Monoses wrote:
> 
> >Forwarded with Paul's permission to theusers list.
> >
> >Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:01:56 +0200
> >From: Paul Sheer <address@hidden>
> >To: address@hidden
> >Subject: Re: [lwip-members] PPP??
> >
> >
> >
> >i still think that writing a ppp implementation from
> >scratch is completely insane when there is already a
> >userland ppp implementation for BSD that can be easily
> >ported to lwip.
> >
> >would those working on the code please consider
> >porting this instead?
> >
> >a full ppp implementation is more complicated even
> >than a tcp stack. before the code is usable it will
> >be larger than the whole of lwip
> >
> >consider for instance that to support pap and chap
> >you need to import many crypto functions from
> >openssl. are you going to make those part of lwip
> >as well?
> >
> >to support ccp you need the zlib library.
> >to chat to the modem you need to develop complex
> >expect/send state machines. then there is lqr and
> >the complex lcp protocol state machine. the list
> >goes on and on and on....
> >
> >slip is a different story - it parallels other
> >"interfaces" and it is small and light because
> >its just a framing protocol. do not confuse slip
> >with ppp - ppp is a monster. bsd userland ppp
> >was years in the development before it was useful
> >
> >-paul
> >
> >On 2003.02.10 17:45 Jani Monoses wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>What do you think Marc's PPP code should live?
> >>I'd vote for the lwip module instead of contrib (as Marc suggested)
> >>because it's platform independent and generally useful and should have
> >>the same "rights" as SLIP and DHCP.
> >>But this is one large piece of code and deserves it's own dir.
> >>netif/ppp  maybe?
> >>
> >>Jani.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>lwip-members mailing list
> >>address@hidden
> >>http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-members
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >lwip-members mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-members
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >lwip-users mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lwip-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
>