hello jijo,
my biggest question is that how does PLDT implement its DSL? are we sure
that they use PPPoE. if so then the roaring penguin might work. however,
if they used something else entirely we have a oops.
in terms of kernel and pppd, the ones that come with the spanking new
kernel 2.4.x series will do. of course, the pppd must match the kernel
too.
if you have any success with PLDT DSL on linux please inform us all about
it. <-- this statement does not only apply to jijo but the who of PLUG.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> Hi fellow PLUGgers,
>
> I'll be getting a PLDT DSL connection within a week or two, so I think
> it's high time that I do major research on getting my Linux box connected
> via PPPoE.
>
> >From my initial research there seem to be two pretty good ways to go about
> it: use the Roaring Penguin PPPoE client, or use kernel-based PPPoE. I'm
> inclined to use the latter (for no particular reason), but it looks like
> that will require a patch version of ppp. I'm currently using an unpatched
> ppp v2.4.1 from Debian's unstable tree.
>
> Would anyone know if the version of ppp that I have will support
> kernel-based PPPoE without needing patching?
>
> Would anyone know what benefits the kernel-based PPPoE solution has over
> using the rp-pppoe client? Has anyone gotten IP Masquerading to work
> properly with the rp-pppoe client?
>
> Lastly, here's something for those of you who are into iptables/netfilter
> (ACENT guys, yoohoo, hehehe): I'm currently using a very simple set of
> iptables commands to allow the entire LAN to do IP masquerading.
>
> /sbin/iptables -t nat -F
> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp+ -j MASQUERADE
>
hello! we are here!!!
> The first command flushes the NAT table, and the second command allows
> traffic to go out through any ppp interface (sometimes I have dial-in
> access which takes up ppp0 which makes the connection to the Internet use
> ppp1). I will probably update this to use whatever interface the pppoe
> client uses for outgoing traffic.
>
> Will these two commands allow the clients to connect to any port on any
> host in the Internet, without allowing any foreign (non-LAN) machine to
> connect directly to a local computer?
>
your clients will be able to connect to any port in any computer in the
outside world. however, people from the outside will only the firewall.
ain't this what masquerading is?
the acent guys.... hehehe.... we user -SNAT instead since we absolutely
know the IP address of the linux masq box.
> Thanks in advance (and pardon the messed up grammar, it's dinner time and
> I'm hungry). Any leads to good sources of information (aside from
> searching on Google which I'll be doing) would be appreciated. :)
>
hehehehe. speaking of dinner.....
--------------------------------------
William Emmanuel S. Yu
Ateneo Cervini-Eliazo Networks (ACENT)
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web : http://cersa.admu.edu.ph/
phone : 63(2)4266001-5925/5904
Teutonic:
Not enough gin.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
