Matthias Andree <ma+ov...@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> said: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, James Yonan wrote: > > > While I do believe that the majority of Windows users will prefer a tap > > interface, I say this simply because in my experience _most_ Windows users > > prefer the option that is the easiest to configure. Once you stop > > automatically routing broadcasts and non-IP protocols, then you have to > > start > > doing more configuration on Windows, i.e. setting up WINS servers and > > clients, > > configuring samba differently, etc. > > Would the TUN device really be much different from any random PPP > device? Either is a point-to-point connection. Granted, with current > Windoze versions, SMB and all that stuff isn't bound to PPP devices by > default but is likely that the user wants it bound to TUN, however, > there are convenience features like --ifconfig.
Yes, tun and ppp are very similar. I know that the linux tun driver basically just sets the ppp bits and the kernel does most of the work. Windows kernel hacking is more complicated, as it requires a great deal more support code to do even simple things. I just did a wc *.[ch] on the source, and ... TAP-Win32 -- 3061 lines of code for TAP only Linux TUN/TAP -- 699 lines of code for TUN and TAP Incidentally, beta8 has an expanded --ifconfig function that works on both tun and tap devices (including tap devices on windows). It also has a --route convenience function that figures out the appropriate per-platform syntax for route, and it too works on windows. James
