From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 31 05:25:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA03819 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA03792 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 05:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id HAA26602 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 07:22:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199707311222.HAA26602@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> Received: from det-mi3-10.ix.netcom.com(199.183.194.106) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma026585; Thu Jul 31 07:21:37 1997 From: "Jerry Bell" To: Subject: Strange ppp -alias problem/feature? Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:16:30 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I have ppp set up on a FBSD box running 2.2.2. I can connect to the Internet using IP aliasing and everything works great, except one thing: if the ppp connection to the Internet is saturated (ie. downloading something big), other computers on the network (via the LAN not PPP) have to wait for a packet to make it out on the ppp device and come back before the BSD box will allow the connection. Obviously, the address of the ppp device (actuall tun0) is the default gateway for this box. As far as I can tell, (and I can't find much in the way of documentation on this) the routes are tried in order, from lowest network to highest. Is this correct? The big problem I am having is this BSD server also runs qpopper to provide e-mail for my network users, and when someone decides to download something large, all of the e-mail pop clients timeout waiting for their packet to come back from the ppp device. This is very frustrating to me and to my users. I believe a way to solve the problem would be to put the Internet gateway on a sepatate computer, but that really isn't possible at this point because of budget contstraints, etc. Is there any way to overcome this problem? by the way, I am using 10.0.x.x series ip numbers, if that is of any help. Thank you, Jerry Bell MIS Reilly Plating Company / M-Lok, Inc. Jerry@reillyplating.com