Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 12:05:46 -0400 (EDT) From: tom@tomqnx.com (Tom Torrance at home) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New routed Message-ID: <m0uwsYM-00082NC@TomQNX.tomqnx.com> In-Reply-To: <2901.841447492@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Aug 30, 96 04:24:52 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'm having heartburn with the new routed, which appears to be > > unusable with ijppp -auto. It INSISTS on deleting the > > default route. > > Uh, do you *need* to run routed? > > Jordan > YES. Things work fine without routed if you have a connection with a FIXED IP number. If your connection gives you a separate IP number on every call, the route for your new IP number to use 127.0.0.1 as a gateway is only put in the table IF you are running routed or gated. All other entries, including the default route are updated properly by ijppp IF they exist when it re-establishes the connection. I happen to have both kinds of connection, so it's easy to see. I access them on a mutually exclusive basis. I don't have a clue how to set up gated for this. I can survive right now by using NO routing software with my fixed IP number connection, and by running gated with the variable IP connection, but that is real hack. Perhaps I am odd, but I think that routed should support dial-up connections too. The new routed -q looks extremely powerful - it just needs to leave static routes alone, like the old one did. ijppp is smart enough to modify the the static default route while leaving it flagged as static. An alternative would be for ijppp to establish the nissing route then clean it up when the delete ALL in ppp.linkup is executed. It could then run without routed or gated in all cases. I still think that the new routed -q deleting a static route is a bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0uwsYM-00082NC>