Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-02-04 Thread Mark Cooke
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Unfortunately getting the same IP is rare now, so I've been toying with > running a PPP tunnel through a fixed host out on the net. The tunnel > would be dropped and recreated with each new connection. My local link > IP would change, but the tunnel

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-02-04 Thread Mark Cooke
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Jamie Lokier wrote: Unfortunately getting the same IP is rare now, so I've been toying with running a PPP tunnel through a fixed host out on the net. The tunnel would be dropped and recreated with each new connection. My local link IP would change, but the tunnel IP

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-31 Thread Ralf Baechle
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:31:36PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Unfortunately getting the same IP is rare now, so I've been toying with Pretty much dependant of the type of equipment and the configuration used at the ISP's servers. I use two ISPs when I'm back in Germany of which the one

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-31 Thread Ralf Baechle
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:31:36PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: Unfortunately getting the same IP is rare now, so I've been toying with Pretty much dependant of the type of equipment and the configuration used at the ISP's servers. I use two ISPs when I'm back in Germany of which the one always

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread John Fremlin
"Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > > I patched userspace ppp-2.4.0 to use this functionality. It would be > > better if SIOCKILLADDR were not used until we are sure that the new IP > > is in fact different from the old one, but pppd in demand mode would > > I get the same

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread John Fremlin
Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > The important thing is that the tunnel is destroyed and recreated > (it has to be, it is over different underlying link addresses). I > do not want that to destroy the connections from the tunnelled > address. No connections at all will be

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread Andi Kleen
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:31:36PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > The important thing is that the tunnel is destroyed and recreated (it > has to be, it is over different underlying link addresses). I do not > want that to destroy the connections from the tunnelled address. Just do not set

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread Jamie Lokier
Andi Kleen wrote: > > I get the same IP about 2/3 of the time, so it is pretty important > > to avoid killing connections until after the new IP is known. > > I prefer it when the IP is killed as soon as possible so that I can see > when the connection is lost (ssh sessions get killed etc.) I

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread Andi Kleen
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:46:42AM +0100, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > John Fremlin writes: > > > When the IP address of an interface changes, TCP connections with the > > old source address are useless. Applications are not notified of this > > and time out ordinarily, just as if nothing had

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread Andi Kleen
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:46:42AM +0100, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: John Fremlin writes: When the IP address of an interface changes, TCP connections with the old source address are useless. Applications are not notified of this and time out ordinarily, just as if nothing had happened.

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread Jamie Lokier
Andi Kleen wrote: I get the same IP about 2/3 of the time, so it is pretty important to avoid killing connections until after the new IP is known. I prefer it when the IP is killed as soon as possible so that I can see when the connection is lost (ssh sessions get killed etc.) I like it

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread Andi Kleen
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:31:36PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: The important thing is that the tunnel is destroyed and recreated (it has to be, it is over different underlying link addresses). I do not want that to destroy the connections from the tunnelled address. Just do not set

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-29 Thread John Fremlin
"Albert D. Cahalan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I patched userspace ppp-2.4.0 to use this functionality. It would be better if SIOCKILLADDR were not used until we are sure that the new IP is in fact different from the old one, but pppd in demand mode would I get the same IP about

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-28 Thread Albert D. Cahalan
John Fremlin writes: > When the IP address of an interface changes, TCP connections with the > old source address are useless. Applications are not notified of this > and time out ordinarily, just as if nothing had happened. This is > behaviour isn't very helpful when you have a dynamic IP and

Re: [PATCH] dynamic IP support for 2.4.0 (SIOCKILLADDR)

2001-01-28 Thread Albert D. Cahalan
John Fremlin writes: When the IP address of an interface changes, TCP connections with the old source address are useless. Applications are not notified of this and time out ordinarily, just as if nothing had happened. This is behaviour isn't very helpful when you have a dynamic IP and know