From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 11 20:24:08 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA13755 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:24:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA13724 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA04451; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:20:59 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:20:58 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: dennis cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Setting PPP netmask! HOW! In-Reply-To: <199611120057.TAA04679@etinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, dennis wrote: > According to a bunch of people.... > > >According to Daniel O'Callaghan: > >> and is totally unnecessary, as Denis says. Simply put, the difference is > >> that you are running a ppp link within a single IP network (happens to be > >> class C), while James is running a ppp link between two distinct IP networks. > >> You: 193.56.58.20 --> 193.56.58.234 > >> James: 203.16.20.1 --> 203.8.105.20 > > It still doesnt make a difference....setting up routing over the PPP link > and defining the netmask of the serial line are two different things... > the bottom line is that you are using direct routes to hosts (not via a > net) when getting from here to there on the link itself. From a > routing perspective (where the issue is next hop), the next hop > is the host at the end of a Point to point modeled network rather > than a gateway on a network or subnetted network. Defining it > as a network is stupid, because there is no net...there are only > 2 peers. TrueAccording to a bunch of people.... > > >According to Daniel O'Callaghan: > >> and is totally unnecessary, as Denis says. Simply put, the difference is > >> that you are running a ppp link within a single IP network (happens to be > >> class C), while James is running a ppp link between two distinct IP networks. > >> You: 193.56.58.20 --> 193.56.58.234 > >> James: 203.16.20.1 --> 203.8.105.20 > > It still doesnt make a difference....setting up routing over the PPP link > and defining the netmask of the serial line are two different things... > the bottom line is that you are using direct routes to hosts (not via a > net) when getting from here to there on the link itself. From a > routing perspective (where the issue is next hop), the next hop > is the host at the end of a Point to point modeled network rather > than a gateway on a network or subnetted network. Defining it > as a network is stupid, because there is no net...there are only > 2 peers. True, but sliplogin or slattach or gated (something, I can't remember which) *does* apply the interface netmask to decide which hosts are gatewayed by the remote end. Probably just some fudging, as you say. Danny