In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: On Mon, 26 May 2008, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
:
: >> Given that this is (a) 2008 and (b) 8.x we're talking about, are there
: >> really that many consumers of SLIP to warrant it being carried forward at
: >> all?
: >
: > It's kind of a basic. [C]SLIP has been historically handy to have around
for
: > situations which warrant it. Mind you, given that we have had tun(4) in the
: > tree for years now, a userland implementation of SLIP is possible.
: >
: > As with all of these things it's down to someone sitting down and doing it.
: >
: > I'm not volunteering to support any of this as I don't use it myself (got
: > enough on my plate), merely pointing out that support for SLIP in a system
: > is something many people have taken for granted over the years, and for
: > prototyping something or providing IP over a simple serial link without the
: > configuration overhead of PPP, SLIP is something someone might be using.
: >
: > P.S. ahc(4) is commodity hardware, I think it can stay right where it is
: > thank-you.
:
: My suspicion is that getting SLIP basically working in userspace is fairly
: straight forward,
SLiRP and friends have been doing this for years. I made my living
for about a year working on TIA, which was a portable, userland
implementation of PPP and SLIP/CSLIP. This was in about 1995 or so.
It isn't that hard...
: SLIP has its subtleties, but the current implementation is relatively
: straight-forward, well-documented, etc.
Yes, especially CSLIP. But frankly, they are a whole lot easier than
PPP to get up and going...
Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
