Date: Tue, 4 Jul 95 11:31:45 EDT From: jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com (James Leppek) To: davidg@Root.com, amurai@spec.co.jp Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another reason not to change 0.0.0.0 into 192.0.0.1 in PPP Message-ID: <9507041531.AA02325@borg.ess.harris.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
WOW, this caused much more discussion than I thought it would :-) I can give you my ppp log but I do not think it is important. The important point is that we have a config file "ppp.conf" and it allows us to set our initial IP address. If the user selects an address ppp should not secretly override it. I think that behavior is wrong, it does not matter what it actually changes it to, the APPROACH is wrong. If dynamic dial needs to have some valid address then lets use the config file and add one, that is what a config file is for. Lets have a dynamic_ifaddr setting if that will do it. I administer a dozen machines(sparcs,pc's running fbsd and windows), I also am a network management and security protocol researcher involved with IETF, IEEE, OSI working groups, I am not a lost "newbie" :-) Lets just chat about whether or not an application that provides a configuration facility should override the supplied values. If the application is providing different types of services then perhaps the configuration file needs to reflect this. It sounds like there is a need to have a "valid" IP for dynamic dial so create a config option to support that, BUT, such a mapping should not be "hidden". Even the selection of a private address would avoid conflict with the world but may involve a conflict within a private network. I know of several private networks in the area that utilize the 192.168.x.x. What would happen if they wanted to supply ppp services to their employee's? If this mapping is needed in some cases lets not make it a hard coded secret, lets make it an option :-) HMMMM I seem to have rambled on a bit here :-) Must be that holiday atmosphere... (oops.. forgot, international mailing list => today is a holiday in the US :-) ) Jim Leppek > From owner-freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Tue Jul 4 09:17:17 1995 > From: Atsushi Murai <amurai@spec.co.jp> > Subject: Re: another reason not to change 0.0.0.0 into 192.0.0.1 in PPP > To: davidg@Root.com, jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com > Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 21:44:27 +0900 (JST) > Cc: hackers@freebsd.org > Reply-To: amurai@spec.co.jp > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] > Content-Type> : > text> > Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org > > > NIC.NORDU.NET internet address = 192.36.148.17 > > NS.ISC.ORG internet address = 192.5.5.241 > > > > > > > Need I say more? :-) > > > > -DG > > Oops I just miss reading your mail. I just want to say I don't need > example for "192.0.0.1" as I mentioned prvious my mail. But I still > need to response/comments/disc ussion for relating you did for ppp. > > We should investgate this problem as two issue. > > First of all. I guss the using "0.0.0.0" ip addr is OK not for dial on > demand mode. Because it's never seen as ip address befor connection > made. But for dail on demand mode, it's can see one of real > address. So I beleive we should assign a private address (RFC1579) > avoiding confliction in world. > > Second. I couldn't understand why James ISP's PPP never try to > negotiate his specified address unless using magic "0.0.0.0" > address. I think it's wrong implementation but if it is getting one of > *standard*, I have idea to do a trick and do a right commit :-) > > Atsushi. > > P.S. James, Could you send me your ppp.log both "0.0.0.0" and "192.0.0.1" ? > -- > Atsushi Murai Internet: amurai@spec.co.jp > System Planning and Engineering Co,.Ltd. Voice : +81-33833-5341 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9507041531.AA02325>