From owner-freebsd-mobile Tue Dec 10 14:16:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA06618 for mobile-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA06613; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA09166; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:12:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:12:49 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199612102212.PAA09166@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: It works! Solved my problem wih Etherlink III on AcerNote Light In-Reply-To: <199612102138.OAA04945@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199612102018.NAA08722@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612102138.OAA04945@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-mobile@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert writes: > > > > ifconfig lp0 192.109.197.159 192.109.197.137 > > > > ifconfig zp0 192.109.197.159 > > > > > > This is incorrect. > > > > You are correct, but it is allowed on Point-Point interfaces and doesn't > > cause problems because of host routes. > > Hmmm... > > How do I tell the difference between a PPP connection that is a > connection to a subnet and a PPP connection that is my connection > to the Internet, such that I (as the PPP) will set up the correct > host and default routes? Every PPP connection is a connection to a 'network', and you will use a 'default' route to have any unknown packets sent to a machine that knows what to do with them, otherwise you rely on addresses/masks. That's why you have default routes. > This actually bears on the modem/ethernet combo card case, or the case > of an undocked laptop with an ethernet in the docking adapter, but > an IR connector otherwise: I should have a marked preference for > the faster media when equivalent media are available. Then you have a 'dual-homed' setup, which is both non-trivial to setup and non-standard. You have to have something like gateD which exchanges routing information from the 'routers' you are connected to in order to do this correctly. > Windows95 RAS (Remote Access Services) has a checkbox on their > properties sheet for this: > - Deletes the previous default route to the local > network adapter card We don't do this. > - Adds a default route for all network addresses > *except* those for which a subnet route already > exists to the Windows95 routing table (use the > undocumented "ROUTE PRINT" command in a Windows95 > DOS box) A 'default' route is a 'default' route. If you don't know what to do with a packet send it to the default route. IT doesn't add routing entries for every known route, it simply states 'if you don't have an existing routing entry, punt it to the 'default' machine. > "Use default gateway on remote network" is not checked: > > - Adds a route for the subnet for the network > (logical subnetting is not allowed) for the > dialed target IP address If you don't where to send it, drop it. No 'default' route exists. In unix, this would be: # route add default ISP.route.net OR not. (This assumes you aren't running routed which listens for default routes that are broadcast, which Win95 doesn't do.) In freeBSD you either have the defaultroute entry set in /etc/sysconfig or not, which does the above command. > In other words, if I have a local network connection, and I dial > up my pop account at my ISP, then Windows95 tends to screw up the > routing while the connection is up. It certainly shouldn't, and doesn't on any of my boxes. Nate