🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20011222.1245.55153snz@wash.demon-co-antispam.uk.pandora.orbl.org>
           john@nospam.demon.co.uk "John Washington" writes:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:26:43 GMT, in article
>      <1008358003snz@dsl.co.uk> bhk@dsl.co.uk
>      "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote:
> 
> ..
> > Please be aware that KA9Q, with or without the "/2", is complete in and
> > of itself.  The TCP/IP stack it implements is purely internal, and it
> 
> Although that's how it's most commonly used, there are also versions
> that use a separate packet driver (run as a TSR).  I'd imagine this
> also applies with the "/2", though I have no experience of them.

Which is, IIRC, "where we came in".  I would love to use the native
TCP/IP stack of OS/2 under KA9Q/2, but AIUI there are no packet drivers
that implement this approach.  (I'm sure that's how this thread happened
to be cross-posted, by me, to the dis.os2 group: lack of further
information might be interpreted in many ways:-)

> Given the choice, I prefer to use the internal stack (better
> throughput, better support).  But for an ISP that requires CHAP
> I don't know how to do that without a packet driver.

Presumably it would not be impossible to add CHAP to KA9Q in a similar
manner to PAP?  It just makes the executable slightly larger, shirley?

-- 
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                          bhk@dsl.co.uk
    "We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
    distributed ignorance.  And we know and understand less while being incr-
    easingly capable."              Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs