On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:36:01 -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote: >Kevin Traas wrote: >> >> >Hmmm. What's the netmask on the ethernet interface? If it's set to >> >255.255.255.224 then everything should work fine even though >> >> Yes, it is. > >Then NT's routing algorithm is wrong or there are other routes afoot. >Run netstat -r on the NT box to verify that the routes to the >ethernet interface have 255.255.255.224 as the netmask. > >> >the NT box sets 255.255.255.0 on the PPP link. This is because the >> >routing algorithm chooses the route with the most matching bits (that >> >is, the one with the longest netmask). Let me know. >> >> Interesting thought. I'll give this a try. >> >> I've got things working right now by setting up the PPP connection and then >> manually setting routes on each end. However, if I can automate this, that >> would be great. >> >> With your msg above, I may not have to make any changes on the NT dialin >> box/router. I'll let you know. >> >> On this subject, though.... Right now, the NT box dials into the modem pool >> via PPP. Is there any way I can have the Linux box (PPP "server") setup a >> static route to the NT subnet at the time the NT box dials in? (I could set >> up a script running in the background with a sleep 60 or so that looks to >> see who's logged in and configures the routing table based on that, but this >> would be quite a "hack" - there's got to be a better way....) > >Sure, you can give pppd the path to an "ip-up" and an "ip-down" >script which will be called when the connection comes up.
A much cleaner way would be to run portslave, the RADIUS client. You will let you spec all of this on a per user and per port basis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .