Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:19:03 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Martin Welk <mw@theatre.sax.de> Cc: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>, freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: one slight glitch in i4bispp Message-ID: <200001110119.BAA07184@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Martin Welk <mw@theatre.sax.de> of "Fri, 07 Jan 2000 07:20:31 %2B0100." <20000107072031.F2765@theatre.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 03:46:06PM +0100, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
>
> > Well, "Ich bin drin - ja", but when I connect for instance over isp0
> > once and i4b times out, the session isn't awoken again when I
> > type something in the respective xterm (or vty).
> >
> > Opening a fresh session in another xterm (vty) works fine.
> >
> > It looks to me like the old connection doesn't get informed about the
> > new routes. (the IP address changes dynamically between sessions).
> >
> > What can I do about it?
>
> When you get a dynamic assigned IP address, the interface address of your
> machine changes. As long as you use this IP address for outgoing
> connections (ssh, telnet, ...) you're stuck when the connection times
> out: you can't tell either side that you're address has changed. Of
> course, your machine should notice it, but what do you expect for the
> other side? It would be real security problem if you really try to tell
> some telnet session that the IP address of one side has changed :-)
>
> OTOH, if you have some address range routed from your machine to somewhere
> behind the MAX (like an internal overlay network based on 192.168.*) you
> could try to open outgoing connections with these addresses and do dynamic
> routing (based on some routing protocol), but this depends on what you are
> really going to do.
>
> BTW, you told us you have an Ascend MAX on the other side. Does this one
> have some address pool for assigning dynamic addresses (I would expect so)?
> You could increase the starting address of this pool once and use the now
> more or less unused first IP address as a static one for your machine, this
> will cause much less pain.
>
> In my case, when I'm using some Internet-by-call provider, I have to run
> something during the session that holds it open, like a ping to some host
> in the provider's network so that neither one side of the connection ever
> closes due to timeout. This also kills my girl-friends IRC sessions.
>
> If I'm totally wrong, tell me a solution, please :-)
ppp(8) :-)
If you enable -nat and -auto, ppp will keep the interface addresses
previously assigned and NAT them for you. This means that the
``first connection'' will end up being NAT'd from the start (it's
bound to the old address but the peer has only ever seen the new
address).
> Regards,
>
> Martin
> --
> /| /| | /| / ,,You know, there's a lot of opportunities,
> / |/ | artin |/ |/ elk if you're knowing to take them,
> you know, there's a lot of opportunities,
> Freiberg/Saxony, Germany if there aren't you can make them,
> mw@sax.de / mw@theatre.sax.de make or break them!'' (Tennant/Lowe)
--
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?200001110119.BAA07184>