Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!hermes.oc.com!news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!news2.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!merk!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.com (Rick Kelly) Subject: Re: Auto-dialing, Auto-redialing under SLIP [FreeBSD 1.1] Organization: The Man With Ten Cats References: <RICK.94Jul29131023@vox.trystero.com> <32j131$1i0@news.bu.edu> Message-ID: <9408152210.06@rmkhome.com> Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.com (Rick Kelly) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 03:10:06 GMT Lines: 38 Bill Heiser (heiser@bu.edu) wrote: : Richard E. Nickle (rick@vox.trystero.com) wrote: : : SLIP works just great. I don't even want to try pppd right now because it : : works so nice. I'd only play with PPP if someone would convince me that : : there is a tremendous performance/reliability gain to be had. Any thoughts? : Hi Rick, : I don't know if it is true or not, but I've read that PPP is "the : protocol of the future". Apparently, although I don't know the details, : there is some sort of "standard" that PPP adheres to (I wish I could : remember where I saw the article that described this :-) The same : article also stated that PPP is more robust than SLIP. : P.s. I'm typing this across a SLIP connection from my FreeBSD "test box". : The performance of this SLIP connection feels significantly better in : terms of interactive response than that of my LINUX SLIP connection. It appears that PPP on NetBSD 0.9a is more robust than SLIP on Linux. A number of confirmed PPP users have told me that PPP is more impervious to line noise. PPP on NetBSD works really well for me. PPP on *BSD seems to be easier to set up and administer than SLIP. PPP is better in an environment where the ip address of the default router isn't guaranteed. My PPP startup script contains one line. -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.com rmk@bedford.progress.com