On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:50:40 -0500, Kevin wrote: >On 5/26/05, Rod.. Whitworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When you have a modem that will do all the connection stuff I am amazed >> that anyone feels the need to do PPPoE. > >I prefer to have control over (and visibility into) the PPP connection and NAT, >to this end I'm seriously considering getting rid of the external ADSL modem >entirely, migrating to a Sangoma S518 ADSL PCI card. >
You are either a keen student or a masochist. ;) Dealing with those two "issues" in reverse order: I have perfect control over NAT because it is done in my OpenBSD firewall and it is way more complex than a modem could do anyway - routing a /29 without "wasting" a public IP on the $ext_if. So you don't need to move to a card to get NAT control, just turn it off in the modem or, as I do for simple client sites with only one static IP, use double NAT with the firewall $ext_if set as the default DMZ host (or something the same with a different name - depends on modem brand) and then the WAN IP will appear to be the firewall address. I have control over PPP in the modem so that I have PPPoA running where it is "common knowledge" (wrong) that PPPoE is needed, the modem logs connections in detail and gives me lots of statistics without consuming firewall resources. At least one brand logs to syslog on the firewall. Finally I have several modems with saved configuration files so the death of a modem is not a drama. With a modem that is working fine an OpenBSD upgrade at the firewall doesn't mean that I need to pray that whatever code I would have been using to drive the modem would work with the latest OS. I used to dream of getting an internal ADSL modem. I'm now very glad I ccouldn't. >From the land "down under": Australia. Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server.
