> My own purpose for using this is securing a bit more
> 802.11(whatever) in a
> large WISP setup. One of my question is how many pptp or
> pppoe sessions
> can be handled by one FreeBSD box knowing each pptp or pppoe
> sessions have
> to be shaped traffic wise symetrically or asymetrically.
Thanks for answering my email , even though I am not a programmer
I can surely test things out to the best of my abilities.
It would be nice to be able to have something like a pptpd integrated into the
FreeBSD tree (STABLE and CURRENT) , it would nice of course to be able to setup
pptp tunnel dy
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> By the way, is there BSD-licensed code for the enhanced version of MPPE
> that does both encryption AND compression (I believe it's called MPPC)?
no. MPPC (STAC-compression) is proprietary and patented (www.hifn.com),
you can enable MPPC, but you hav
Cristophe:
Nothing was decided in private e-mail. I'd really like to go for this,
but will likely need some help analyzing the existing code, abstracting
the right parts from pppoed and mpd, and gluing everything together.
That's why I was hoping to ask Archie and Brian for help. The code for
bo
Christophe Prevotaux wrote:
> Any hopes for anything like a pptpd (like the pppoed)
> any time soon ? , discussion stopped in the thread
> so maybe you guys discussed this further privately
> and decided something ?
Not really.. from my point of view, unfortunately I don't have time
to work on m
Hello,
Any hopes for anything like a pptpd (like the pppoed)
any time soon ? , discussion stopped in the thread
so maybe you guys discussed this further privately
and decided something ?
pptpd is a much needed feature nowdays.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:00:45 -0600
Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:27:38PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
B> I haven't gotten any hopes up, but it would be nice. It seems as
B> if the only alternatives are to un-GNU PoPToP (which requires
B> a clean room team; possible but not easy) or to create a FreeBSD
B> pptpd that is analogous to pppoed.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:37:57PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
R> I pretty much agree. Attached are my configuration files
R> for mpd/pptp; please let me know (Julian) how this could
R> be enhanced to serve more PPTP clients simultaneously
R> (with different IP addresses). I'd appreciate it.
Yo
At 08:50 PM 7/24/2003, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>I don't have time to do any real work.. however, the PPTP control
>layer can be used pretty much as is.. i.e., the files pptp_ctrl.[ch].
>It has a fairly clean API that any PPP daemon could use, and all they
>require is some kind of event support.
We
Brett Glass wrote:
> >I'd like to, but to be truthful I don't have much time to spare
> >these days...
>
> Would it be possible for you to spend just a few hours on converting
> code from mpd's pptp_ctrl.c and pptp.c into the basis of the daemon?
> The daemon would need to accept incoming "calls"
>
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > > > >However I do suggest that you discuss the
> possibility of enhancing mpd
> > > > > >with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
> > > > >
> > > > > I seem to recall (I could be mistaken here) that
> Archie has been working
> > > > > with a co
At 10:23 PM 7/23/2003, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>I'd like to, but to be truthful I don't have much time to spare
>these days...
Would it be possible for you to spend just a few hours on converting
code from mpd's pptp_ctrl.c and pptp.c into the basis of the daemon?
The daemon would need to accept inc
Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > > >However I do suggest that you discuss the possibility of enhancing mpd
> > > > >with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
> > > >
> > > > I seem to recall (I could be mistaken here) that Archie has been working
> > > > with a company that does Wi-Fi
Brett Glass wrote:
> >That's correct.. the code is not released. I'll ask about it again
> >(but don't keep your hopes up).
>
> I haven't gotten any hopes up, but it would be nice. It seems as
> if the only alternatives are to un-GNU PoPToP (which requires
> a clean room team; possible but not eas
At 05:16 PM 7/23/2003, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>That's correct.. the code is not released. I'll ask about it again
>(but don't keep your hopes up).
I haven't gotten any hopes up, but it would be nice. It seems as
if the only alternatives are to un-GNU PoPToP (which requires
a clean room team; possibl
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > >However I do suggest that you discuss the possibility of enhancing mpd
> > > >with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
> > >
> > > I seem to recall (I could be mistaken here) that Archie has been working
>
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >However I do suggest that you discuss the possibility of enhancing mpd
> > >with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
> >
> > I seem to recall (I could be mistaken here) that Archie has been working
> > with a company that does Wi-Fi access points with P
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:01:54PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 02:56 PM 7/23/2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >However I do suggest that you discuss the possibility of enhancing mpd
> >with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
>
> I seem to recall (I could be mistaken here) th
At 02:56 PM 7/23/2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>However I do suggest that you discuss the possibility of enhancing mpd
>with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
I seem to recall (I could be mistaken here) that Archie has been working
with a company that does Wi-Fi access points w
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> forget it..
> I had a braino I was thinking of some other stuff.
> sorry for the confusion.
However I do suggest that you discuss the possibility of enhancing mpd
with archie to allow allocation of addresses from a pool.
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul
forget it..
I had a braino I was thinking of some other stuff.
sorry for the confusion.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:12:04AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> > At 12:21 AM 7/23/2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> > >it needs one netgraph node... fullsto
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:12:04AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:21 AM 7/23/2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >it needs one netgraph node... fullstop
> >it uses negligable kernel ram per session
> >1node handles lots of sessions
>
> The way the configuration file works, one
> node can handle
At 12:21 AM 7/23/2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>it needs one netgraph node... fullstop
>it uses negligable kernel ram per session
>1node handles lots of sessions
The way the configuration file works, one
node can handle only one client. I tried to
work with it when we first began to set up
PPTP
Hi,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:29 PM 7/22/2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >Why not just use mpd?
>
> Because it's completely inadequate as a server. It needs one
> Netgraph node, and a complete configuration, for every possible
> client that might ever connect to it. And if lo
it needs one netgraph node... fullstop
it uses negligable kernel ram per session
1node handles lots of sessions
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:29 PM 7/22/2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >Why not just use mpd?
>
> Because it's completely inadequate as a server. It needs one
> N
Brett Glass wrote:
I'll bet that Brian Somers could crank this out in a hurry...
Yes, but it would be an awfulhak. (so, shoot me...)
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mai
By the way, one thing that MIGHT work instead of PoPToP is to
create something like FreeBSD's pppoed for pptp. It'd connect
the Netgraph PPTP implementation to userland PPP, in much the
same way that pppoed connects the Netgraph PPPoE implementation
to userland PPP.
I'll bet that Brian Somers coul
At 03:29 PM 7/22/2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>Why not just use mpd?
Because it's completely inadequate as a server. It needs one
Netgraph node, and a complete configuration, for every possible
client that might ever connect to it. And if lots of clients
connect, it eats tons of kernel RAM.
We mi
Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:29 PM 7/22/2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >Why not just use mpd?
>
> Because it's completely inadequate as a server. It needs one
> Netgraph node, and a complete configuration, for every possible
> client that might ever connect to it. And if lots of clients
> connect,
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 10:04:52AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> > if you are running a poptop pptp server and you want multiple clients
> > connecting to this one pptp server; make sure you get the GRE ID update
> > (poptop always sets the id to 0 - messes up two connections).
>
> Is this update in
>
> > if you are running a poptop pptp server and you want
> multiple clients
> > connecting to this one pptp server; make sure you get the
> GRE ID update
> > (poptop always sets the id to 0 - messes up two connections).
>
> Is this update in the FreeBSD port/package for poptop? (It should be.
> if you are running a poptop pptp server and you want multiple clients
> connecting to this one pptp server; make sure you get the GRE ID update
> (poptop always sets the id to 0 - messes up two connections).
Is this update in the FreeBSD port/package for poptop? (It should be.)
If not, where can
> FreeBSD makes a very good NAT router... for most applications.
> But a client of mine is having terrible trouble with it when
> trying to use NAT with one particular protocol: PPTP.
>
> Here's what's going on. A client has a FreeBSD box that's serving as a
> NAT router. He has one public IP, a
lling allowing for this?
cheers,
-jn
-Original Message-
From: Brett Glass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NAT and PPTP
FreeBSD makes a very good NAT router... for most applications.
But a client of mine is having terrible trouble wi
Actually, in his case the PPTP clients are Windows machines
inside the firewall, while the servers are outside and not
under his control. The firewall itself isn't running PPTP.
At least one of the servers is running pptpd + Somers PPP +
natd. I can connect to it just fine from a machine with a
"
how is he doing pptp?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> FreeBSD makes a very good NAT router... for most applications.
> But a client of mine is having terrible trouble with it when
> trying to use NAT with one particular protocol: PPTP.
>
> Here's what's going on. A client has a FreeBS
At 01:44 PM 7/17/2003, Michael Bretterklieber wrote:
>that's not true, libalias (=natd) very well supports PPTP-nat. Maybe the
>problem is in your firewall. Firewalls have to pass protocl 47 (=GRE) in
>order to get PPTP to work.
It is. In fact, I think that may be part of the problem.
I didn't s
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> inspected vary depending upon the encapsulated protocol. FreeBSD's natd
> doesn't understand that mechanism, so it doesn't know how to route GRE packets
> from the outside world back to the correct client on the private LAN.
that's not true, libalias (
FreeBSD makes a very good NAT router... for most applications.
But a client of mine is having terrible trouble with it when
trying to use NAT with one particular protocol: PPTP.
Here's what's going on. A client has a FreeBSD box that's serving as a
NAT router. He has one public IP, and lots of PCs
39 matches
Mail list logo
