Hi Daniel, В Tue, 15 May 2012 14:55:20 +0300 Daniel Golle <dgo...@allnet.de> пишет:
> On 14/05/12 02:35, Daniel Golle wrote: > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 08:23:06PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> Any package that adds a protocol handler script now needs to have netifd > >> support (netifd will be enabled by default soon, once the remaining > >> scripts have been ported). > >> Today I finished porting over the existing pptp script. The netifd > >> version is quite simple, you can use it as template. > > I used the netifd'd pptp.sh script and integrated it into ppp.sh. > > To remain compatible, I also added support for ppp-mod-pptp to files.old. > > Besides this, everything as it was. > > I'll test it extensively on ar71xx and kirkwood in the next days. > With some small corrections in options.pptp (which should probably be retired > in > favour of having stuff configurable through UCI anyway) I got stable and > well-performing results when using the pptp plugin and kernel-mode pptp > instead > of user-space pptpd. > I even overdid it and chained several L2TPv2 and PPTP connections within each > other until the resulting MTU of the inner-most tunnel ended up ridiculously > low > -- it's all working great for more than 18 hours now on a small Atheros > AR7240. > > Considerung the footprint, a single quite busy PPtP session looks like this on > that box: > PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND > 12267 1 root S 1644 6% 0% /usr/sbin/pppd plugin pptp.so > pptp_se > 12270 1 root S 1644 6% 0% /usr/sbin/pppd plugin pptp.so > pptp_se > > uptime: 11:53:50 up 18:29, load average: 0.21, 0.24, 0.19 > loadavg: 0.29 0.26 0.20 1/48 12601 > > So obviously, obviously the call-manager is still fork'ed into a seperate > process which is created and being controllled by the plugin. > > Besides that I tested it on rt305x(mipsel), kirkwood(armel) and x86. > > After integrating #31724 this also starts up correctly and one-by-one after a > reboot, not needing manual ifup/ifdown calls any more if initially > unresolvable > hostnames instead of plain IP addresses are used. > > Please advise me what is still missing or needs to be changed. > How is everybody's schedule regarding the integration and changing of > procotols > to netifd. The question is basically, if I should work towards getting this > integrated asap or if we want to get stuff entirely polished and working in > netifd with the existing pptp implementation and then eventually switch over > to > kernel-mode pptp. Thank you very much for the great work! Do you have a git repository somewhere with all this stuff you mentioned applied (patches, bug fixes, options?) so I can test it? -- Alexander _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
