On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:01:12PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > phk has chosen 0.0.0.1 since it obviously cannot be a meaningful
> > > statically configured address.
> > OK, but is it really necessary? It's much simpler to add routes
> > over P2P interfaces using the interface name ...
> You need to configure /some/ interface address for the remote end
> anyway, and it must not clash with any other routing table entry,
> since "ifconfig ... up" always adds an entry for the remote IP address
> for p2p interfaces.
Only if you have INET address configured on an interface.
> (Actually, it even tries to enter it twice, so
> you get a meaningless "Address already exists." message when bringing
> a p2p interface up with ifconfig.)
> The politically correct solution to negotiate the remote PPP address
> would have been to change the routing table entry after negotiating
> the address, of course. However, this seemed to be too much hassle
> for the small&simple intent of sppp(4), in particular considering that
> the only added value compared to the 0.0.0.1 hack would be that you
> can reach the IP address of your peer directly.
Why not just bring the interface up first, then negotiate an address,
then add it to interface?
[Please DO NOT exclude my personal address when replying -- I didn't
ask for it (as many do) through the Mail-Followup-To: header.]
Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message