On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:55:51 -0800 "Paul B. Henson" <hen...@acm.org> wrote: >> From: YASUOKA Masahiko >> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:20 AM >> >> % ospfctl show fib | grep 128 >> * 56 10.128.120.0/24 127.0.0.1 >> * 56 10.128.120.213/32 10.0.0.1 > > Interesting, not only does it show a /24 route, it looks like it has it > marked as valid. Is this with pppx or tun? IIRC, when I tested tun ospfd > found a /24 route, but still didn't propagate it.
That was with tun. >> Even if tun(4) is used, packets are processed in-kernel. > > Ah, I had thought pipex was just for pppx, but now I see in the man page it > says "pipex is used with tun(4) and pppx". What's the difference between tun > and pppx in the context of npppd then? Is there any particular reason to use > one versus the other for an L2TP VPN? pppx(4) creates a interface for each PPP session. tun(4) doesn't create any interface and uses only one interface for all PPP sessions. Generally pppx's way is thought to be natural and tun's way is tricky. Old system had had some problems if it has a lot of interfaces. tun's way had been used to avoid those problems. So I think pppx should be used. --yasuoka
