From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Jul  2 07:27:06 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id HAA28102
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 07:27:06 -0700
Received: from cyclops (xtwa7.ess.harris.com [130.41.26.166])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA28081
          for <freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com>; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 07:26:57 -0700
Received: (from jleppek@localhost) by cyclops (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA00305; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:26:59 -0400
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 10:26:59 -0400
From: Jim Leppek <jleppek@harris.com>
Message-Id: <199507021426.KAA00305@cyclops>
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
CC: freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com
In-reply-to: <199507020712.JAA03111@uriah.heep.sax.de> (message from J Wunsch on Sun, 2 Jul 1995 09:12:50 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: ppp
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Yes, my provider wants to see 0.0.0.0 during the initial negotiation
phase however thats the problem. A 0.0.0.0 address gets converted to
192.0.0.1 within the ppp even if you set ifaddr 0 0.
This occurs in ipcp.c around line 164 per my earlier mail message.
It is this forced ( and hidden ) conversion that I question.
When I set my initial address to 0.0.0.0 I expect ppp to use it.

I definitely like the new ppp and have stopped using my old pppd
scripts by this conversion of 0.0.0.0 is a definite gotcha IMHO.

I removed the questionable src lines and rebuilt ppp so all
is well for me but for anyone not comfortable with tweeking sources
or tracking ip negotiation bugs I suspect it would have taken
a bit of time.


Jim Leppek

   From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
   Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 09:12:50 +0200 (MET DST)
   Cc: freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com
   Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
   X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669
   X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
   Content-Length: 913       

   As James Leppek wrote:
   > 
   > I suspect the fact that 0.0.0.0 was invalid is why my provider chose it.
   > This allows them to detect that someone must be provided an IP
   > (although I would not mind if they would give me a permanent IP :-) )

   Perhaps he has been refering to the _PPP_ setup.  I've been playing
   with PPP for the first time yesterday when installing 2.0.5 on my
   notebook (and i've been impressed about the easyness! :).  I think
   your provider wants you to use 0.0.0.0/0 as your initial adress,
   meaning ``any IP address is acceptible'' (the trailing /0 means ``I
   insist on 0 bits of this address to be used.'')

   But this is only the initial address to the IPCP layer, the actual
   IP address will be negotiated, and the kernel will only see the
   correct address.
   -- 
   cheers, J"org

   joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/
   Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)