From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 7 17:17:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11392 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:17:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11320; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:16:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brian@awfulhak.org) Received: from gate.lan.awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA12071; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:04:39 GMT (envelope-from brian@gate.lan.awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <199712080104.BAA12071@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Eivind Eklund cc: Brian Somers , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Route behaviour (was Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c) In-reply-to: Your message of "08 Dec 1997 01:17:56 +0100." <8690twpu17.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 01:04:39 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Brian Somers writes: > > > brian 1997/12/06 20:09:16 PST > > > > Modified files: > > usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c > > Log: > > Only allow one arg to `delete' - the mask & gateway aren't necessary. > > Delete AF_LINK routes as well as AF_INET. > > Allow the word `default' as the arg to `delete' or in place of the > > first two args (dest & netmask) to `add'. > > Accept INTERFACE as the third arg to `add'. > > > > You can now say `add default interface' to create a default route > > through the tun interface. It's reported that subsequent bind()s > > will bind to a broadcast address and not to the address currently > > assigned to the tun device - this is the first step towards > > supporting that first connection that was around from before the > > dynamic IP negotiation.... > > I've been thinking a bit more about it, and now I consider this > binding a bug. With an interface route to an interface with no > assigned address, we're actually sending packets onto the network that > hasn't got a legit source address. > > This works for the single case where there is a NAT engine at the > other end of that link, but that is also the _only_ case it works for. Perhaps ppp should automatically replace 255.255.255.255 src addresses with the correct source address.... Is this the IP that gets assigned by the kernel ? I haven't checked - see below. > I'm still a bit uncertain about what would be the best approach - > probably binding to another interface in the machine. That's weird > too, but probably less surprising never the less > > What do other people think? Is this feasible given the way routing is > implemented in the FreeBSD kernel? Well, the only other person that seems even partially interested is Julian (from Whistle). I believe he added the -iface option to route in the first place. That's about all I know of his setup. Others are interested, but I think they'll expect to maintain connections after a carrier loss. It's difficult to make some people understand that the ISP just doesn't route the old connection to you any more - there's nothing that can be done locally. We need a smart radius server...... Me, I'd like to come up with a solution, but I haven't got a setup for assigning dynamic IPs. To this end, I've been looking at the radius port with plans to make ppp fully functional on the server side - I'm not sure if the mpd stuff is more important though. Too much to do and too little time to do it.... nothing new there. I've got a list of other things a mile long too :-/ I'd like to get this ``first connection'' thing working - I'll keep looking at it :-O > Eivind. -- Brian , , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....