[pptp-server] PPTP masquerade && MS non-compliance

[Jamin Collins]

Allan Clark [mailto:allanc at caldera.com] wrote:
> You don't explain the reason for your judgment.
> 
> When making this "simply not right" judgment, are you working on Logic
> ("It's not right because <reason 1>  <reason 2>  <reason 3>") or on
> faithful compliance ("It's not right because the RFC says so").

Both.  Some simplified reasoning: Logic indicates that multiple connections
from one IP to one IP is less efficient than one connection routing traffic
for multiple clients. Also, RFC's are there for a reason.

> Blind faith on a spec that seems to have necessitated non-compliance
> should be reviewed.  The RFC is a guideline which should be 
> followed as best possible.

Exactly, it is possible to follow this spec exactly and still attain what is
being requested.  Just because some organizations or people have not
complied with it is not a viable reason that we should not.

> Even Military services change rules; the RFC might indeed be wrong.  

What does the Military have to do with the discussion of PPTP and the RFC.

> We've shown a point where it could be incorrect.  RFCs often fail to
> concretely describe protocols until a few iterations and clarifications.

And, I've provided a few different ways that using the existing
configuration the desired results can be achieved.
 
> This is why I suggest "fix and amend": if it's wrong, build a reference
> source product, and amend the RFC to concretely describe the better
> way.  

Agreed, but only if it's wrong and the change is absolutely necessary to
achieve the goal.

Jamin W. Collins