From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jul  3 05:11:55 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id FAA02869
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 1995 05:11:55 -0700
Received: from ess.harris.com (su15a.ess.harris.com [130.41.1.251])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA02863
          for <freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 1995 05:11:54 -0700
Received: from borg.ess.harris.com (suw2k.ess.harris.com) by ess.harris.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA07870; Mon, 3 Jul 1995 08:11:50 -0400
Received: by borg.ess.harris.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA01365; Mon, 3 Jul 95 08:09:29 EDT
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 08:09:29 EDT
From: jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com (James Leppek)
Message-Id: <9507031209.AA01365@borg.ess.harris.com>
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Subject: Re: ppp
Cc: freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The "fix" is to remove the lines that override the users request
to set the address to 0. I think the flexibility provided by ppp
is important to support the variety of users. To say it is a
providers fault because they want to use a particular address
to indicate that the user is requesting an IP seems harsh.
This is espicially true if some of their clients have assigned
IP address's and other are asking for one from the "pool". 

I do not think the this hidden conversion is proper if
the user has set their initial ip to 0.0.0.0 with a set ifaddr,
they must mean it :-)
What is the "value added" to changing it to some other arbitrary
value?

I would think it appropriate if someone would commit this
or better yet remove the offending lines from ppp/ipcp.c.

*** ipcp.c      Tue May 30 07:21:55 1995
--- ipcp.c.fixed        Sat Jul  1 08:35:24 1995
***************
*** 160,167 ****
--- 160,171 ----
      icp->want_ipaddr.s_addr = DefMyAddress.ipaddr.s_addr;
      icp->his_ipaddr.s_addr = DefHisAddress.ipaddr.s_addr;
    }
+ 
+ /*
    if (icp->want_ipaddr.s_addr == 0)
      icp->want_ipaddr.s_addr = htonl(0xc0000001);
+ */
+ 
    if (Enabled(ConfVjcomp))
      icp->want_compproto = (PROTO_VJCOMP << 16) | ((MAX_STATES - 1) << 8);
    else


I know I keep bringing this up but it just doesn't seem right.
In the kernel pppd an IP of 0 just causes the "accept_local" flag
to get set, which seems appropriate.
 
If no one agrees, oh well, I will keep changing
my copy after each sup which is what "having the sources" is
all about I suppose :-)

Jim Leppek


> From j@uriah.heep.sax.de Mon Jul  3 03:51:35 1995
> From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
> Subject: Re: ppp
> To: jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com (James Leppek)
> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 09:10:23 +0200 (MET DST)
> 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
> 
> As James Leppek wrote:
> > 
> > the problem is that some providers are willing to accept valid addresses
> > and skip negotiation, so if you give anything other than 0.0.0.0 they
> > reply ok and let you have it :-(
> 
> This is their fault.  They are not supposed to allow any address...
> 
> > I do not know if the kernel-ppp does the same thing but I think it 
> > is a bug if it does.
> 
> If you can come up with a (tested) fix, please submit it.
> 
> -- 
> 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. ;-)
>