From owner-freebsd-current Fri Dec 7 12:19:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5FC37B417 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:19:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id VAA28985 for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:19:43 +0100 (CET) Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB7K1CI97259 for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:01:12 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from j) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:01:12 +0100 From: Joerg Wunsch To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: rev 1.61 of /sys/netinet/in.c breaks ISDN Message-ID: <20011207210112.A97235@uriah.heep.sax.de> Reply-To: Joerg Wunsch Mail-Followup-To: Joerg Wunsch , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org References: <200112061126.fB6BQ5v00774@Magelan.Leidinger.net> <200112061352.fB6DqnE47522@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20011206162840.C82299@sunbay.com> <200112062023.fB6KNWd65603@uriah.heep.sax.de> <20011207095553.D13705@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011207095553.D13705@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:55:53AM +0200 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-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG As Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > phk has chosen 0.0.0.1 since it obviously cannot be a meaningful > > statically configured address. > OK, but is it really necessary? It's much simpler to add routes > over P2P interfaces using the interface name ... You need to configure /some/ interface address for the remote end anyway, and it must not clash with any other routing table entry, since "ifconfig ... up" always adds an entry for the remote IP address for p2p interfaces. (Actually, it even tries to enter it twice, so you get a meaningless "Address already exists." message when bringing a p2p interface up with ifconfig.) The politically correct solution to negotiate the remote PPP address would have been to change the routing table entry after negotiating the address, of course. However, this seemed to be too much hassle for the small&simple intent of sppp(4), in particular considering that the only added value compared to the 0.0.0.1 hack would be that you can reach the IP address of your peer directly. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message