On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:12:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 22 May 2008 16:50:59 Josef Wolf wrote: > > But wasn't ppp originally intended to connect multiple networks? In > > this (IMHO _very_ common) scenario you would always have at least two > > interfaces: ppp to the provider and a statically configured interface > > to the local network. Further, you would probably provide DHCP/DNS > > servers (e.g. via dnsmasq) for the local network. This gives the > > setup I mentioned above. > > > > I don't see the point in having ppp as your one and only interface. > > Is this scenario really _that_ common? Who would want to use such > > a setup? > > D-I is not responsible for such setups. It does not do such setups for > systems with two "normal" NICs that are used as bridge, router or Internet > gateway, and I don't see why it should do anything special for PPPoE. > > D-I sets the system up for use with a single NIC. Any other config ATM is up > to the sysadmin after the installation has completed. And, as said before, > I see no reason to do things differently for ppp-udeb than we do for > netcfg. > > The current settings are a rather careful compromise between different > needs. Changing them would require a lot of care.
Yes, I see... I did not know that multiple NICs are out of d-i's scope. I simply felt I have to bring this problem into attention because it was a result of a thread that was started by me, and I felt some sort of responsibility for this problem. BTW: In the special case described above, a simple workaround is available: use dnsmasq's "no-hosts" and "addn-hosts" options (this is what I actually did). But I have no idea what could go wrong in other setups (I am not exactly a network expert). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
