From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri May 19 11:37:50 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA29533
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:37:50 -0700
Received: from asstdc.scgt.oz.au (root@asstdc.scgt.oz.au [202.14.234.65])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA29522
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 19 May 1995 11:37:25 -0700
Received: (from imb@localhost)
	by asstdc.scgt.oz.au (8.6.12/BSD4.4)
	id EAA10489; Sat, 20 May 1995 04:35:40 +1000
From: michael butler <imb@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Message-Id: <199505191835.EAA10489@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Subject: Re: More on "Hmm.. Strange..."
To: peter@haywire.dialix.com (Peter Wemm)
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 04:35:38 +1000 (EST)
Cc: davidg@Root.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950519225850.12939B-100000@haywire.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at May 19, 95 11:59:21 pm
Reply-To: imb@scgt.oz.au
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1160      
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Peter Wemm writes:

> >    That is happening because you have both the ethernet and ppp
> > interfaces in the same subnet. FreeBSD doesn't support this - each
> > network interface must be in a unique subnet. As far as I know, it's
> > always been this way in BSD.
 
> It should.. The code is there to support it.  What the BSD kernel requires
> is that the _remote_ end is in a different subnet (that's the way it's
> been since BSD4.3).  I'm quite sure it works in NetBSD, not because I've
> tried it, but because there are a dozen or so Internet Service Providers
> over here using it.

Whilst I'm afraid I can't offer much in helping solve this dilemma, it
raises a question for me ..

Is there any mechanism in FreeBSD (-current or otherwise) to permit the
dynamic allocation of IP addresses from a predetermined "pool" for the sole
purpose of connecting intermittent dial-in users ? If not in the "standard"
release, as an add-on ?

If the above discussion requires that the (far) end-point is in a different
subnet and I have two (or more) remote dial-ins, do they need to be in
different subnets of their own for gated to operate correctly ?

	michael