From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 20 10:17:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA24034 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:17:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA24024 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA11410; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:02:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199611201802.LAA11410@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Ipx to ip routing To: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:02:02 -0700 (MST) Cc: exidor@superior.net, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199611201618.KAA07394@brasil.moneng.mei.com> from "Joe Greco" at Nov 20, 96 10:18:43 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I would think that in the sort of environment you are suggesting, one > would think that DHCP is the ideal solution, and would allow for properly > subnetted networks that do not suffer from the general problems of a > network with 13 bits of space. I agree. And I'm not a big fan of DHCP, either. Are people actually implementing PAP yet? One big problem is that most RAS clients on MS boxes (Windows 95 without the "Plus! Pack" and Windows NT prior to 4.x) do not do auto connection on the basis of routing information... ie: demand dial PPP. An application has to be RAS aware, or a human has to establish the connection. Bleah. But they are much better at being DHCP clients than a BSD box can generally stumble through. 8-(. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.