Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:04:39 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Route behaviour (was Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c) Message-ID: <199712080104.BAA12071@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "08 Dec 1997 01:17:56 %2B0100." <8690twpu17.fsf@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
>
> > brian 1997/12/06 20:09:16 PST
> >
> > Modified files:
> > usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c
> > Log:
> > Only allow one arg to `delete' - the mask & gateway aren't necessary.
> > Delete AF_LINK routes as well as AF_INET.
> > Allow the word `default' as the arg to `delete' or in place of the
> > first two args (dest & netmask) to `add'.
> > Accept INTERFACE as the third arg to `add'.
> >
> > You can now say `add default interface' to create a default route
> > through the tun interface. It's reported that subsequent bind()s
> > will bind to a broadcast address and not to the address currently
> > assigned to the tun device - this is the first step towards
> > supporting that first connection that was around from before the
> > dynamic IP negotiation....
>
> I've been thinking a bit more about it, and now I consider this
> binding a bug. With an interface route to an interface with no
> assigned address, we're actually sending packets onto the network that
> hasn't got a legit source address.
>
> This works for the single case where there is a NAT engine at the
> other end of that link, but that is also the _only_ case it works for.
Perhaps ppp should automatically replace 255.255.255.255 src
addresses with the correct source address.... Is this the IP that
gets assigned by the kernel ? I haven't checked - see below.
> I'm still a bit uncertain about what would be the best approach -
> probably binding to another interface in the machine. That's weird
> too, but probably less surprising never the less
>
> What do other people think? Is this feasible given the way routing is
> implemented in the FreeBSD kernel?
Well, the only other person that seems even partially interested is
Julian (from Whistle). I believe he added the -iface option to route
in the first place. That's about all I know of his setup.
Others are interested, but I think they'll expect to maintain
connections after a carrier loss. It's difficult to make some people
understand that the ISP just doesn't route the old connection to you
any more - there's nothing that can be done locally. We need a smart
radius server......
Me, I'd like to come up with a solution, but I haven't got a setup
for assigning dynamic IPs. To this end, I've been looking at the
radius port with plans to make ppp fully functional on the server
side - I'm not sure if the mpd stuff is more important though.
Too much to do and too little time to do it.... nothing new there.
I've got a list of other things a mile long too :-/
I'd like to get this ``first connection'' thing working - I'll keep
looking at it :-O
> Eivind.
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org>, <brian@FreeBSD.org>, <brian@OpenBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712080104.BAA12071>