From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 2 01:21:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA19695 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 01:21:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA19677; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 01:21:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id KAA04932; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 10:21:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.8/8.8.5) id KAA20816; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 10:20:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19980102102027.41384@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 10:20:27 +0100 From: J Wunsch To: Greg Lehey Cc: Brian Somers , John-Mark Gurney , freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/5404: slXX slip (tun & ppp) interfaces always point to point Reply-To: Joerg Wunsch References: <199801010130.RAA10049@hub.freebsd.org> <199801011325.NAA17803@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <19980102105504.61189@lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <19980102105504.61189@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Fri, Jan 02, 1998 at 10:55:04AM +1030 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk As Greg Lehey wrote: > While I agree that the net mask makes no sense on a point-to-point > link, many people don't. My ISP (Telstra) asks me to set a net mask > of 0xffffffc0 on my link. I wonder why. Because they (or their routers) are stupid, and they don't know it better. You'll be surprised to find how many router vendors don't understand the very basics of IP routing. > >> Routes to the remote end apart from the implied host route seem to be > >> dangerous to me, and they break the current behaviour (i.e. could > >> cause surprises for people who are used to how it's done now). > > I don't know what you mean here (I didn't see the original message). > In almost every case, you have a route to the remote end, usually a > default route. I'm guessing that you mean something else. It's too much out of context that i remember myself. I think my remark was about other _automatically_ installed routes (at ifconfig time). There's nothing wrong with `route add ...' later on, but the admin should always be required to do this manually. (In Linux, you even gotta install the interface route yourself.) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)