Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:46:18 +1000
From:      "Doug Young" <dougy@gargoyle.apana.org.au>
To:        "Tony Landells" <ahl@austclear.com.au>
Cc:        "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: suroute ?? 
Message-ID:  <01ab01c0b18f$98ca2c40$8300a8c0@apana.org.au>
References:  <200103202233.JAA17881@tungsten.austclear.com.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Topology is typical ISP except that many of the "clients" have 2 / 8 /
16 public IPs. A quick workaround is to to enable NAT, however that
defeats the object of running servers on the LAN .... all appear from
outside to have the gateway IP address.  Adding a route to the LAN
subnet after connection has been established doesn't appear to be
sufficient. I can't be the first to encounter this issue ... surely
there has to be a more straightforward solution than messing around
with apparently fragile perl scripts ??


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Landells" <ahl@austclear.com.au>
To: "Doug Young" <dougy@gargoyle.apana.org.au>
Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>; <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: suroute ??


>
> dougy@gargoyle.apana.org.au said:
> > Seems like a rather messy solution to a simple problem. Is this
the
> > best / most technically correct solution ??  I'm trying to root
out as
> >  many "home grown" fixes that have been inherited here as possible
&
> > replace them with "standard" versions where available. I'm sure
this
> > isn't the only situation on the planet where remote users with a
few
> > public IPs dialin to a POP. How does everyone else deal with it ??
>
> Mike's solution would fix your "problem" as presented--that you have
a
> script which has stopped working.  It would also be a "minimum
change"
> solution because all the rest of your setup should be the same.
>
> Given additional information (like what it's for), you'll get a
different
> solution.
>
> > Wayyyyyy back when, all the dialup users used SLIP, thankfully
there
> > aren't many of them left. However I've had better results with
user-
> > ppp than pppd and would like to move all the dialups over to
user-ppp.
> > Main challenge appears to be automating the "route add" after the
link
> > is up.
>
> One of the sad things about SLIP is that most implementations didn't
> permit you to set up routing, so you needed hack solutions.
>
> PPP is much nicer because there's some address negotiation as part
of
> the protocol.
>
> However, without a good knowledge of your topology it's hard to say
> what the best (or even a good) solution would be for you.
>
> Tony
> --
> Tony Landells <ahl@austclear.com.au>
> Senior Network Engineer Ph:  +61 3 9677 9319
> Australian Clearing Services Pty Ltd Fax: +61 3 9677 9355
> Level 4, Rialto North Tower
> 525 Collins Street
> Melbourne VIC 3000
> Australia
>
>
>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01ab01c0b18f$98ca2c40$8300a8c0>