"Wikström, Mårten" <Marten.Wikstrom@erda.se> writes: > Is the use of syncppp discouraged in favour of ppp_generic? > > Background: > I have an E1/T1 interface from SBE that ships with its own syncppp. This > lacks some vital functions (e.g. IPv6, Multilink PPP), and this seems also > be the case with the syncppp that ships with the kernel. I was thinking > about implementing it myself, but then I found some old postings on the lkml > suggesting that there was no use putting effort into it, since you should > use ppp_generic instead. To me the ppp_generic and syncppp seem completely > different and I am very confused right now. Should I update syncppp or try > to hack the card driver to use generic ppp instead? What I think is we need just one PPP driver. Hovewer, ppp_generic requires tty device (either async or sync) and insists on creating network device. That isn't sane behavior if you just want existing net device to talk PPP. We should merge the drivers, AFAIK 2.5 is coming... -- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
