[lwip-users] Re: [lwip] PPP

[Adam Dunkels]

On Wednesday 10 October 2001 12:21, you wrote:
> > If code size matter, things doesn't really look
> > promising; James' PPP code
> > compiles to nearly 13k. That is 4k more than the
> > lwIP TCP!
>
> I think long term, it would be better to port a full
> version of PPP for use with lwIP (or else write a
> lwPPP from scratch...)  James' code is useful because
> of its simplicity rather than its size - certain
> important functional elements are not implemented,
> such as authentication.  Unfortunately, PPP always
> going to be quite a large chunk of code.

Yes, you are right, it is probably better to take a real PPP such as the BSD 
PPP. Authentication is indeed a very important feature of PPP. 

> That said, if added to lwIP, it would provide a useful
> test platform whereby a remote target could be
> connected via serial/ethernet to a host PC without OS
> or other software dependencies.

This brings up another question: how widely deployed is SLIP? Or, rather, is 
SLIP installed in Windows by default? I guess SLIP would suffice in many 
circumstances when connecting embedded TCP/IP systems to PCs with serial 
cables. There are hacks that can be done for setting the IP address and such.

But Ethernet is probably a more likely use for lwIP.

/adam
-- 
Adam Dunkels <address@hidden>
http://www.sics.se/~adam
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]