Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:20:58 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Setting PPP netmask! HOW! Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961112151910.1559F-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199611120057.TAA04679@etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961112151910.1559F-100000>