Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 22:22:50 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@muc.de> Cc: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>, freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: i4b syncppp not talking with Ascend Max - followup Message-ID: <199912082222.WAA17842@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Gary Jennejohn <garyj@peedub.muc.de> of "Wed, 08 Dec 1999 10:10:08 %2B0100." <199912080910.KAA06613@peedub.muc.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As a followup to my previous mail, it seems like this trivial change
> should allow each isp interface (up to 15) to be assigned a unique
> address. I expect that this would eliminate the problems which we've
> been seeing when more than one interface has 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.1 assigned,
> since we could now use 0.0.0.0/[0.0.0.1 thru 0.0.0.15] instead, which
> should be enough for most users ;-)
[.....]
I don't really think this is the right way to go... these magic IP
numbers should be chosen by the user..... I feel the same about
0.0.0.0 though.
In real life, there should be a way of UPing an interface without
assigning a local address, having ports bind to this ``to be
assigned'' address and then ultimately tidying everything up when
the interface is finally configured. Until then, nothing can arrive
on the interface, but stuff can be routed to wherever the destination
address points. The local address 0.0.0.0 is reasonable, but lots
more support is needed - it's non-trivial :-|
> ---
> Gary Jennejohn / garyj@muc.de garyj@fkr.cpqcorp.net gj@freebsd.org
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@FreeBSD.org.uk>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912082222.WAA17842>