| 1 |
Kevyn Shortell wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd have to take a guess that Comcast in California has more DHCP cable |
| 3 |
> customers than Canada has broadband customers. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Bell Canada's Sympatico service started out as the driving force behind |
| 6 |
the development of PPPoE clients under Linux, and the past two releases |
| 7 |
of both Mandrake and RedHat have in fact included built-in support and |
| 8 |
configuration frontends that enable a user to get online with minimal |
| 9 |
hassle. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Re: the sanity of choosing DHCP over PPPoE, the main perceived drawback |
| 12 |
is the dynamic IP. This is a management issue - PPPoE is as capable of |
| 13 |
delivering a static IP to the user as standard PPP is. As for |
| 14 |
encapsulation overhead, 1meg and 3meg service render this unnoticeable |
| 15 |
to the user (it may perhaps be 'less efficient' from a purist |
| 16 |
standpoint, but these are residential connections we're talking about). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
At any rate, seeing as both PPPoE and DHCP are not as universal as |
| 19 |
ethernet (which requires the presence of such utilities as ifconfig in |
| 20 |
the basic system), and are both really fast emerges, wouldn't they |
| 21 |
contribute to a nice small base system? They seem more reasonable |
| 22 |
choices than some of the other suggestions I'm seeing. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I agree that pruning the base system is probably a good idea, but why |
| 25 |
> look at basic network components that atleast half of our users require |
| 26 |
> in order to get their machine on the net? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Because they're options, and options are not defaults. :P |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Brad |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives