From owner-freebsd-isdn Thu Dec 9 14:24:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org Received: from peedub.muc.de (peedub.muc.de [193.149.49.109]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C19515242 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:24:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garyj@peedub.muc.de) Received: from peedub.muc.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peedub.muc.de (8.9.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA09687 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:03:13 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <199912092203.XAA09687@peedub.muc.de> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999 To: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org Subject: Re: i4b syncppp not talking with Ascend Max - followup Reply-To: Gary Jennejohn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Dec 1999 22:22:50 GMT." <199912082222.WAA17842@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 23:03:12 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn Sender: owner-freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brian Somers writes: >> 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 :-| > exactly - it's non-trivial. My patch at least offers a possibility to avoid the problems associated with multiple interfaces with 0/1 addresses. And it's hackish, just like the original "fix" to the problem ;-) But we really should revamp the whole sPPP interface issue. _I_ don't plan to do it in the foreseeable future, though. --- Gary Jennejohn / garyj@muc.de garyj@fkr.cpqcorp.net gj@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message