From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Jan 1 11:51:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03807 for bugs-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 11:51:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03802; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 11:51:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id UAA27805; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 20:51:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.5) id UAA17876; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 20:30:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19980101203024.48956@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 20:30:24 +0100 From: J Wunsch To: Brian Somers Cc: John-Mark Gurney , freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/5404: slXX slip (tun & ppp) interfaces always point to point Reply-To: Joerg Wunsch References: <19980101185007.59283@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199801011819.SAA19774@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <199801011819.SAA19774@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>; from Brian Somers on Thu, Jan 01, 1998 at 06:19:50PM +0000 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Brian Somers wrote: > > Why? Proxyarping is done on the Ethernet interface, and this one > > still has a netmask. > > I mean in the sense that the client cannot broadcast on the network > at the other end of the pointopoint link, or can it ? Broadcast relaying is IMHO not supported. > could set up a static route for the broadcast address. That should > work. I haven't tried. Hmm, maybe this would work. > > Nope, you can't. `p2p' is an unchangeable attribute of an interface, > > see IFF_CANTCHANGE in /sys/net/if.h. > > Perhaps IFF_POINTOPOINT should be settable while the interface is > down only. Why? After all, this interface _is_ point-to-point. Allowing to change this from userland is stupid. Maybe allowing it for tunX would make sense under some circumstances, but running PPP over it really mandates it to have IFF_POINTOPOINT set. ProxyARP itself is already a big hack i would discourage except of a few cases. Don't give the people the feeling they could solve all their problems by proxyarping half of the Internet. :) We should rather encourage people in setting up a clean routing than in setting up hack^2's. (Btw., the worst i've seen so far is HP's internal network. This is just one big hack, at least the part i've seen.) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)