Personally, I use it because it is there, and it works, and I have no
reason to take it out. Can pppd keep the link up 5 minutes after an http
packet but only 1 minute after an ftp packet? _I_ _don't_ _think_ _so_!
That said, since I nailed my link up, I have no reason to keep it.
-Tom
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Cy wrote:
> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 03:30:36 -0600
> From: Cy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [masq] [masq] [masq] pap login fails when nameserver traffic cause
>
> I have (probably) a dumb question. Why do people use DIALD when PPPD
> provides demand dialing? Just curious...
>
> Cy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Shoemaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 26, 1998 10:27 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [masq] [masq] [masq] pap login fails when nameserver
> > traffic cause
> >
> >
> > Thanks for using NetForward!
> > http://www.netforward.com
> > v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
> >
> > My recommendation (2 cents worth) is to get rid of that "modem,"
> > which is causing all that grief, and spend around $300 to get an
> > entry-level isdn router. I hear good reports, from my ISP at least,
> > about the Netgear 328 and 348. No more hassles with serial ports
> > supporting baud rates, NO MORE DIALD! I haven't got any hands-on
> > time with the models I mentioned, yet, but I have an installation
> > coming up soon, and I expect it to go smoothly. From what I've seen
> > of the manuals of these products, all incoming traffic can be routed
> > through your masq box, giving you, in effect, a second layer of
> > firewall protection.
> >
> > More details as soon as the phone company gets its act together, and
> > lets us do the install.
> >
> > > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 17:05:36 -0800
> > > To: Fuzzy Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > From: Stefen Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: [masq] [masq] pap login fails when
> > nameserver traffic causes diald to bringup link
> >
> > > At 09:20 PM 12/23/98 -0600, Fuzzy Fox wrote:
> > > >David A. Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >1) The 16650 serial <-> modem isn't reliable at 230400 (using cable
> > > >> > supplied with modem.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've heard that Linux's setserial has problems with 16650s.
> > > >
> > > >I don't know about this, but I do know that a 16650 is not supported by
> > > >Linux 2.0, unless you have some patches I don't know about. I
> > am forced
> > > >to run Linux 2.1, which has full support for the 16650. Not that
> > > >there's anything wrong with the 2.1 kernel; it works just fine for me.
> > > >
> > > Sounds like I need to move to the 2.1 kernel... I was
> > > putting off having to learn ipchains.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stefen
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > "Some people crave baseball - I find this unfathomable - but I can
> > easily understand why a person could get excited about playing a
> > bassoon." -- Frank Zappa
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
