Re: PPP

Christopher Fraser (chrisf@nospam.sour.sw.oz.au)
Thu, 13 Oct 1994 17:11:37 +1000

But I thought Stephen Boyd Gowing said:
> > > I've been avoiding answering the PPP question 'cause I'm not sure just
> > > how feasible it is without any modems attached.. I expect it'd work fine
> >
> > Oh - not feasible at all! PPP would be useful (only) over modem lines.
> > Concievably one could come in to somewhere through a modem (8 data, no
> > parity, 1 stop) and rlogin to ftoomsh that attempt a PPP attach... most
> > kernels would barf at such a thing though...

Yup, this should work. Even via the SoCS modems; PPP is supposed to be able
to probe the line, detect which characters don't work and only use that do.
The SoCS modems are still pretty sick though -- no rotary, sick flow control
when they work and 7e1 is just a sick joke.

> Groovy.

(I get the feeling your against PPP already. :-)

> SoCS doesn't have a policy but I'm sure we could put one together when we
> needed to -- it'd be something along the lines of, we'll let you if we
> aren't told not to but if something bad happens we'll shut you down. ITD
> probably don't have a policy either but I expect if you asked they
> wouldn't let you.

So, what would be have to do get an allocation of IP numbers to play around
with (or better still, our own subnet?)

On a technical side, is it possible to do packet sniffing from a PPP link?
(I can't see how -- you'd need to put the ethernet interface on the remote
machine into promiscuous mode).

-- 
Christopher Fraser      `Hackers have better buns'
chrisf@nospam.sw.oz.au