From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Apr 12 04:45:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA27367 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from buffnet4.buffnet.net (buffnet4.buffnet.net [205.246.19.13]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA27362 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 04:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from buffnet1.buffnet.net (mmdf@buffnet1.buffnet.net [205.246.19.10]) by buffnet4.buffnet.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA04755 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:29:53 GMT Received: from buffnet7.buffnet.net by buffnet1.buffnet.net id aa07749; 12 Apr 96 7:41 EDT Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:41:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Hovey To: Annelise Anderson cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PPP and SLIP Servers In-Reply-To: <01I3FLIFEGLE0009TT@HOOVER.STANFORD.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk If you need full PPP or SLIP it shouldnt be too evil to do with that tunnel driver with freebsd. If you dont need full ppp or slip, say if you will be using netscape, ftp and the like and not the facier iphone kind of thing, or if they just wont give you an ip address to use for this - you could use tia or slirp which make you look like the box you call up. On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Annelise Anderson wrote: > I am able to establish a slip or a ppp connection to Stanford's slip > service from home, using FreeBSD 2.1R. > > But Stanford's lines are often busy, and I was thinking I might like > to use my 2.0.5 setup at the office, connected to Stanford's Ethernet > setup, as slip or ppp server. > > The documentation suggests that to run it as a ppp server, I need an > ip address for it different from the ip address I have that's assigned > to the Ethernet interface; and I also need an ip address for the machine > at home. > > The slip server discussion doesn't mention this, but it does note that > "options GATEWAY" needs to be in the kernel. > > It may be that it's just too complicated to make the office machine > work as a server, but I would be interested in comments on which would > be likely to work better and whether I really do need additional ip > addresses. > > Annelise > > >