Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 17:48:38 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>, John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>, freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/5404: slXX slip (tun & ppp) interfaces always point to point Message-ID: <19980104174838.41538@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19980102102027.41384@uriah.heep.sax.de>; from J Wunsch on Fri, Jan 02, 1998 at 10:20:27AM %2B0100 References: <199801010130.RAA10049@hub.freebsd.org> <199801011325.NAA17803@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <19980102105504.61189@lemis.com> <19980102102027.41384@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 02, 1998 at 10:20:27AM +0100, J Wunsch wrote: > 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. It would have to be them. Their routers can't see how I've set my net mask. I had a discussion about this with a bloke here in Adelaide a couple of months ago. He runs a large ISP, and he came up with some plausible reason, but unfortunately I've forgotten the details. It had to do with Microslop: they use broadcasts a lot, and this would seem to indicate that they expected broadcasts on a /26 subnet, or at least were prepared to respond to them. >>>> 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.) It sounds like you're saying that PPP shouldn't be allowed to set the default route automatically when the link comes up. Say that's not what you mean. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980104174838.41538>