Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 13:57:44 EDT From: jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com (James Leppek) To: tom@uniserve.com Cc: freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: ppp Message-ID: <9507031757.AA01662@borg.ess.harris.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
How did you configure your netblazer(what they have) to do this? was it configured to assert a particular IP based on password like most? As I indicated, I asked that they should certainly refused IP's they do not have authority over as a minimum, but I have no "real" ability to do anything. I also love to constantly hear "the windows and linux users do not have a problem" AAARRRRGGGG I think this thread is loosing focus so let me try to get it back on track :-) what is magic about 192.0.0.1? should ppp map a users configuration request to some arbitrary alternate IP. Set ifaddr is there for a purpose and even gives "ifaddr 0 0" in an example. I know that ppp supports negotiation, the real issue is the remapping without considerable justification. This is simply not intuitive. PPP supports negotiation but I do not believe the standard says what IP's are reserved or negotiable. All we are doing is overriding a user configuration, which is the opposite of what the config file is for! Atsushi sent me a long example of a negotiation session thats starts with set ifaddr 0 0 and a negotiation phase that starts with 192.0.0.1 !!!! If he wanted 192.0.0.1 he should have entered set ifaddr 192.0.0.1 0 This is the EXPECTED behavior while the assumption that the provider knows that 192.0.0.1 is "wrong" is not. I do not know how to make the point much clearer. This is not a ppp negotiation discussion, that works. This is not a "ISP ppp is broken" discussion, they conform to the standard although not in an EXPECTED fashion. They are not filtering/refusing some IP address's, although they refuse an invalid one, which is the expected behavior. If they would have accepted 0.0.0.0 then I would say they are broken. This is a discussion about EXPECTED behavior. If I configure my ppp to start negotiating with 0.0.0.0 why would I expect to see that become 192.0.0.1?????? IF this doesn't make it clear from a users point, I guess I will have to give up :-) I yield the thread... Thanks Jim Leppek > From tom@haven.uniserve.com Mon Jul 3 13:00:34 1995 > Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT) > Sender: Tom Samplonius <tom@haven.uniserve.com> > From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> > To: James Leppek <jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com> > Cc: amurai@spec.co.jp, freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com > Subject: Re: ppp > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> > > > On Mon, 3 Jul 1995, James Leppek wrote: > > > Suppose the provider accepted the 192.0.0.1 address and arp'd > > it (mine did). How does the provider know that for freebsd machines the magic > > You should tell your provider to fix his broken equipment. For > example, using the IP of a nameserver or a mailhost would really mess > things up. > > This gets real ugly when the PPP server is broadcasting routes to gateway > routers. A large ISP in the US had similar equipment, and some joker > decided to use 1.0.0.1 as an IP address, that route was actually > broadcast out onto some major backbones so that you could actually > traceroute to 1.0.0.1 from outside systems. > > > "I want an IP" address is 192.0.0.1 > > Some providers offer both rotory and fixed IP service we just can't tell > > them to change for fbsd. I have tried it did not work :-) > > What is supposed to happen, is that the PPP server should _tell_ your > system what address to use. There is no need to use a "magic" IP address > to signal this, as the PPP protocol has full address negotiation > capability. I've setup a PPP server that can do both static and dynamic > assignment with no requirement for magic IP's. > > Tom >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9507031757.AA01662>